1951-04-13

Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Browne (St. John's West) be substituted for that of Mr. Adamson on the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  A. J. Baler@The Baillefords: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Have the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan made representations to the federal government for assistance in constructing a bridge on the fourth meridian across the North Saskatchewan river due north of Lloydminster?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: My officials inform me that no such representations have been made.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. Gaulhier (Sudbury):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, of which I have given him notice. When may we expect the announcement of the opening of the regional income tax office in Sudbury?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the opening of our new income tax office in Sudbury will take place about the middle of the summer, July or August. In any event I want to assure the hon. gentleman that it will be opened in time to collect the taxes which become effective July 1.



REQUEST FOR SETTING OF FLOOR PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister in a position to say
whether the government will meet the request of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to set a floor price of 62 cents under butter in order to stabilize the market?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The government has not yet
determined what the floor price for butter will be in the coming year.
(Translation):



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Boivin (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret), can the parliamentary assistant tell me whether he knows of the numerous representations I have made concerning the new Granby post office and, if so, can he tell me what the minister intends to do about this matter?


Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assistant to the Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the department has carefully noted the hon. member's representations. The estimates for 1951-52 include an item for $100,000 to be spent on the erection of a public building in Granby at the corner of St. Antoine and Principale streets, on the north side. Plans have been submitted to our department by the Department of Public Works. We have made some suggestions to that department and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) has now received these alterations. It can therefore be presumed that the project will go forward as speedily as possible.
(Text):



LETTER CARRIER SERVICE TO RECENTLY ANNEXED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposiiion):: I wish to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Postmaster General. I realize that this will be more in the nature of a notice than a question, but I am bringing the matter up now in the hope that it will be dealt with as soon as possible. Notice of the question has been sent to the Postmaster General. Is it the intention of the Postmaster General to arrange for letter carrier delivery service to those parts of Ottawa which have been recently annexed to
1988	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the city, and to take such steps as may be necessary to remove the unjust differences in postal rates charged for the handling of mail in different parts of the city?
As I say, I leave that as notice, unless the parliamentary assistant is in a position to answer the question.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Postmaster General may I say that notice of this question was handed to me as I was coming into the house, and I have just had the opportunity, during the proceedings up to now, to read it. However, if my memory serves me aright, a delegation from the city council met with the Postmaster General some time ago to discuss this matter and was informed that this section of the city did not quite meet the requirements of the department, particularly with regard to street names, proper receptacles for mail, and requirements of this nature. I shall be pleased to take the matter up again with the Postmaster General when he comes back to the city, and will then report to the hon. gentleman.


George Alexander Drew: Just so that the matter may be dealt with on the broad basis on which I brought it to the attention of the Postmaster General, I would point out that the subject discussed by the parliamentary assistant is only one part of the subject that I brought forward. There are also the differences in postal rates within the city; persons within the city are compelled to pay penalty postage, on the basis of the natural assumption that the ordinary three-cent rate applies throughout the whole area of the city.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. I regret that I did not have time to give him notice of it, and if he is not prepared to answer today, I should be pleased if he would do so on Monday. Has the minister been approached by the Sheet Metal Association of British Columbia complaining of the serious situation created in that province owing to the cutting off of steel supplies and the fact that there has been no defence production in British Columbia so far?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: I know of no such representation, but I shall be glad to make inquiries and answer the question on Monday.



DEFENCE EXPENDITURES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Has consideration been given to the setting up of a special committee of the house, comparable to the war expenditures committee which served during the war, but this time dealing with defence expenditures?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Consideration has been given to that question, and no final decision has yet been reached.



EXCISE TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that many vendors of cigarettes are today charging the new price on cigarettes upon which the extra excise tax provided by the budget has not been paid, will the minister give consideration to the desirability of having stamped on the excise stamp which is affixed to each package the exact amount of the tax that is being paid?
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National
Revenue): It has been found that many retailers increase the prices of existing stocks when taxes are raised. They consider what the replacement value of the goods is, knowing that they will have to pay the higher rates on such replacements. They also know that if and when taxes are reduced or removed, they are not allowed any credits for taxes paid on the goods they then have on hand, and they consider that the increase on current stocks offsets the loss they may take later on.
There is the further point that there is in the Excise Tax Act no provision for prohibiting or preventing this practice, which is quite prevalent in the lines of businesses affected, though some large retailers advertise that they will not raise their prices on existing stocks, and they themselves stand the loss on goods on hand when the taxes are reduced or removed; but they consider this to be good advertising.
I may say that we have large stocks of stamps on hand, and that it would probably be an unnecessary expense to change to the method suggested, namely, that of indicating the extent of the tax instead of indicating the

number of cigarettes on the package. But it is a matter which will be considered when the present supply of stamps is exhausted.


John George Diefenbaker: It would show the amount of the hidden tax.


James Joseph McCann: I understand what the hon. member means.


Mr. Coldwell:: I wish to ask a supplementary question. Has anyone informed any member of the government that the prices of cigarettes per package have been raised from 36 to 40 cents and from 45 to 50 cents? This increase is far in excess of the new tax which is roughly 3 cents and 4 cents.


James Joseph McCann: That may be so and is so. But we have no way of regulating the price the merchant asks for his goods.


Major James William Coldwell: That is inflationary.


Mr. Charlton:: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Revenue, in view of his answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). Does the same thing apply to can-dies?


James Joseph McCann: The same answer can be applied to candy. A great many merchants have already announced that they have reduced the prices in accordance with the reduction in tax.


Mr. Abbott:: They take whatever loss there is.


James Joseph McCann: They take the loss themselves.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Canal services-
473. Operation and maintenance, $4,523,107.


Mr. Gibson:: More or less on a question of privilege I should like to make a few remarks. I did not bring this matter up last night because it was getting close to eleven o'clock and I knew the minister was anxious to get the general item through. Can the minister give me an explanation of the anomalies that exist in the railway pass privileges for members of parliament? I understand that the passes of the members from Newfoundland are not affected, but on the other hand members coming, say, from Digby, Nova Scotia, to Saint John, New Brunswick, and from Vancouver to Victoria, or Victoria to Nanaimo, find their passes are not accepted on Canadian Pacific Railway steamships. I am wondering whether the minister himself,
Supply-Transport
when he visits our coast, which he unfortunately does not get an opportunity to do often enough, will get a pass on the Victoria-Nanaimo or Victoria-Vancouver boat. I am also informed that the -members of the legislature in Newfoundland have their own privileges. That may or may not be so. Is it true that they get pass privileges on the Canadian National steamship vessels operating to and from Newfoundland? If so, what part of the Railway Act entitles them to it? Are our passes valid on these lines under the same provision? If the minister cannot answer offhand, perhaps he will look into the matter -and see how it stands and what changes could possibly be made. Of course there is the question of subsidies involved. Some of the Canadian Pacific steamship lines get substantial subsidies from the government. If that is the basis upon which it is worked, I should like to have it looked into.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The only anomaly that I am aware
of is that concerning the movement outside of Canada, and it is on the line of the Canadian Pacific to the maritime provinces, part of which runs through the United States. The Railway Act clearly makes provision for free transportation to members of the House of Commons and of the other place in Canada.
I think that goes for the rest of the question that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni raised. The Railway Act gives no authority for free transportation on steamships.


John Lambert Gibson: Even if it is part of the transcontinental system?


Lionel Chevrier: Even if it is part of the
transcontinental system. That would exclude a car ferry, such as the Prince Edward Island car ferry, which -is considered a part of the railway system. If my hon. friend looks -at the pertinent section of the Railway Act he will see that the privileges of members in this regard are set out in detail. It certainly does not include transportation on the steamships.


John Lambert Gibson: On the other hand, one would think the steamship service from Digby, Nova Scotia, to Saint John, New Brunswick, would be included, because that is the only way in which the maritime members can get to their constituencies. I cannot swim to Vancouver, neither can the hon. member for Nanaimo. It must inevitably be part of our transcontinental system, and has always been -recognized as such. The mere fact that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary and called by -a different name should not obviate the responsibility of the
1990

Supply-Transport
railway companies to recognize these passes. It is not a matter of great concern, but I am interested.


Lionel Chevrier: I can only be guided by what the act of parliament says. If the act were changed to meet that position, then of course the regulations would be put into effect to meet it; but as it is now, the position to which my hon. friend refers is not covered in the act.


John Lambert Gibson: Many amendments are introduced every year. I wonder whether that would not be an excellent amendment to bring down. We might open the Railway Act for one day and introduce the amendment. I am sure the minister will have to do it one of these days.


Mr. Sinclair:: Cut out the steamship subsidies.


John Lambert Gibson: No; I think these are important. I have always believed that they were based on equity, and I am sure the minister would say that.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: There is just one question I should like to ask. The matter has been brought up before. There are several members here from New Brunswick and several in the other place, who are obliged to go through the state of Maine in order to get to Ottawa. To do otherwise you would be obliged to go around to Moncton on the Canadian National Railway, and it would take an additional day to arrive in the capital city. These members are obliged to pay what is called a fee through Maine. It amounts today to around $10. The minister has said that it is a regulation. There is one thing that I fail to understand. I can send these receipts down to the Canadian Pacific Railway office here in Ottawa and within a few days I will get a cheque for the amount that I have paid. If I have two, three or four receipts they will give me a cheque for the full amount. It looks to me like a lot of bookkeeping for nothing. At one time I lost three or four receipts, and I know other hon. members have done the same thing. I do know of one member from New Brunswick who at one time had a through-Maine pass.
I would ask the minister to look into the matter to see if it is possible to have the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National issue passes to cover such travel. There are only about seven or eight members affected. It is a nuisance. There is no revenue involved so far as the railway is concerned, because the member is reimbursed when he sends the receipts to the Canadian Pacific Railway office.


Lionel Chevrier: I have given this matter careful consideration once before, and I have

come to the conclusion that unfortunately this cannot be done, because it is a part of a line over which neither parliament nor the board of transport commissioners have any jurisdiction. Parliament passed an act dealing with railways in Canada only. Similarly, the interstate commerce commission can confer no jurisdiction over United States lines in Canada, and unless there is a willingness on the part of the railways themselves to do it there is unfortunately nothing that can be done from this end.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Just one other question, Mr. Chairman. Is the cheque that is given to me by the Canadian Pacific Railway office a donation by the Canadian Pacific Railway, or a donation by the federal government; or where does it come from? I can send my receipts down and in a few days I get a cheque. It is a Canadian Pacific Railway cheque on the Bank of Montreal. Is it a contribution by the Canadian Pacific Railway to me as a member of parliament, or what is it?


Lionel Chevrier: I would think that it is.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Lionel Chevrier: I presume the attitude they take is that since -under the terms of the act they cannot grant free transportation, they refund it in that manner.


John Lambert Gibson: Under what authority does the Canadian National Railways give Newfoundland members the privilege of riding free on their ships?


Mr. Slick:: We do not get it.


James Sinclair: And not the British Columbia members.


Lionel Chevrier: Because of the continuity of operation between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, in the same manner as- there is -continuity of operation between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island so far as Prince Edward Idland is concerned.


John Lambert Gibson: There must be continuity of
operation between Saint John -and Digby, because, after all, the Dominion Atlantic Railway, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Canadian Pacific Railway, meets the train there.


Lionel Chevrier: No; the position is different, because one is a car ferry operated by the government through the Canadian National Railways, and the other service is operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


Mr. Harris (Danforlh):: Mr. Chairman, I
could never understand why it was considered necessary to grant these extraordinary privileges. I sympathize with hon. members who come from remote parts of the

country to help us run the affairs of the country, but frankly I am of the opinion that the time has long since passed when his extraordinary right to travel on passes should have been done away with. The other day, for instance, there was reference to hon. members of this house travelling free to Churchill. Travel free, by all means, but let us have vouchers filed with those charged with administration of these matters, so that they may have entries in their bookkeeping system in respect of each and every one of us who exercises this particular privilege. Honour those vouchers by all means; but let us not in this institution, where we enjoy such great privileges and where we are permitted to spend so freely-and not always our own money-let us not spend too freely the money which comes from our taxpayers. Let those vouchers be scrutinized in such a way that those who send us here will feel satisfied that they are receiving true value for the amounts covered by the vouchers passed by those in authority.
Ten years ago I travelled in my hon. friend's part of the country on a train on which only one passenger had paid his fare: all the rest of us were on some sort of free ticket, some sort of pass.


Mr. Cruickshank:: The Thursday train to
Toronto?


Joseph Henry Harris: We carry these
tickets in our pocketbooks. I felt ashamed to travel on a pass on that train, because my business at that time was not political. I was not on that particular day saving the nation; rather I was transacting personal business ini my hon. friend's part of the world. I like him; he is a very fine gentleman, and I feel proud to be associated with him. But at that time I felt, as indeed I have felt for a decade since, that there was some doubt whether I should be travelling free on one of Canada's trains to do my own business.


John Lambert Gibson: It does not bother the hon. member on week ends?


Joseph Henry Harris: I see over there one of the members from Vancouver, and I can say that I did the same thing in his part of the country, and felt equally ashamed.
The whole procedure of issuing free passes on a transportation system, whether it be rail to the Pacific coast, or the short-cut from Saint John to Digby, is questionable. One pays a few dollars extra to travel by that short-cut so as to save time. The procedure of issuing passes is something that should be looked into. We should try to find some method by which we can pay our own way to a greater extent, and not take so much for 80709-1274
Supply-Transport
granted or accept so readily the free transportation made available to us by the Railway Act. By the provisions of that act we are permitted to travel hither and yon, often for purposes of statesmanship, but oftener for personal business reasons. We are altogether too free in this practice. I see that the minister is busy consulting his deputies; perhaps it is about something more important than I am saying.
I repeat that the time is ripe for cutting down the number of free rides on the merry-go-round, even though we do get a brass ring. It is not too late to cut down this privilege of free transportation afforded to many of our citizens who, while they are not permitted to ride free on busses or aircraft-and I express the hope that the privilege may not be extended to those means of transportation-do travel free on trains and steamships.
When I say this my remarks are not directed to our tenth province of Newfoundland. I realize they must travel back and forth, and I hope that anything I say will not in any way limit their ingress or egress. I realize that our tenth province is a long distance away. Yet when I sit in a train and see the widows of Brown, Smith and Jones who have free transportation I feel that the time has come when a few dollars should be spent to investigate this high privilege which is given to many people. Most of them deserve it, but about ten per cent of them do not. It is a privilege which we as members of parliament, as well as our wives, sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters and sweethearts, enjoy when travelling on trains and steamships, and it is a privilege which should be checked and wherever possible curtailed. It should not be abused.
I have seen the privilege abused for over thirty years-and I shall not go into detail in the matter, although I could if I were asked to.


Mr. Mclvor:: Would the hon. member be in favour of the cancellation of transportation privileges, so that only our expenses would be paid?


Joseph Henry Harris: Yes, and that
vouchees should be supplied.


James Sinclair: Turn in your pass.


The Chairman:: Order. I would remind hon. members that the item under consideration refers to canal services.


Mr. Caiherwood:: I thought we were discussing the first item.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: No; it was carried yesterday.

Supply-Transport


A. Earl Catherwood: Then I have some observations to make on item 473. I should like to ask the minister a series of questions with regard to some of the canals in Ontario. Has the minister figures of the cost of maintaining and operating the Rideau canal? Are records kept of the number of boats of all descriptions passing through the canal, and if so, how many passed through in 1950 and in 1949?


Lionel Chevrier: The cost for the maintenance of the Rideau canal in these estimates is $368,565. We have a record of the number of boats passing through the canal, and I can get it for my hon. friend.


A. Earl Catherwood: My next question concerns the Welland canal, in which I am more or less interested. Can the minister give the revenue derived from the operation of that canal in 1950?


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I shall have to get the figures for the hon. member.


A. Earl Catherwood: From what sources is that revenue obtained?


Lionel Chevrier: It is mostly from the lease of lands and from the power development on the Welland canal.


A. Earl Catherwood: In the public accounts of last year, $10,000 was provided for the transfer of lands and responsibilities in connection with the Welland feeder canal, and I understand that that amount was not used. Is there provision for a similar amount in the estimates this year?


Lionel Chevrier: The $10,000 was not used because an agreement was not effected between the township concerned and the department. It will be used this year if an agreement is completed.


A. Earl Catherwood: What was the total
revenue from all canals in Canada in 1950?


Lionel Chevrier: $1,100,000 and some odd.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canal services-
475. To provide for expenses in connection with the St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations, $10,000.
Mr. Green:: This item has to do with the St. Lawrence ship canal. Will the minister indicate what effect it is expected the construction of this canal will have upon the transportation system of Canada? Yesterday representations were made by the legislative committee of the railway brotherhoods in connection with this proposed St. Lawrence seaway, and they used these words:
We regard the value of the proposed seaway to Canada as theoretical, its cost very real, its need
[The Chairman.]
very doubtful, and its possible effect must be viewed with concern in so far as transportation is involved.
As the minister knows, last evening I suggested that there should be a commission or other body set up to study this whole question of the effect of the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway upon the transportation system of Canada. It might be possible to set up a committee of this house to consider the question. So far as we know, little thought has been given to the subject; yet it would appear to be of the utmost importance, particularly in view of the fact that with this Turgeon report we are entering upon a new day in transportation. This would seem to be the time to consider the whole transportation picture, of which the St. Lawrence seaway will be a most important part. Can the minister give us a review of the effects upon our transportation system that are expected to follow when the St. Lawrence seaway is built?


Lionel Chevrier: The railway brotherhoods have always opposed the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway, and in their briefs to the government they have set down reasons why it should not be proceeded with. Unfortunately, because of the estimates that concerned the Department of Transport, I was not present yesterday when they made their presentation to the government. But I have read the brief, and it is not at all dissimilar to those which have been presented on previous occasions.
The railways in the United States have carried on quite a militant opposition to the project. At one time the opposition in Canada was perhaps not unlike that in the United States, but I believe it has changed substantially. Notwithstanding the representations made by the brotherhoods, the former president of the Canadian National Railways declared himself to be in favour of the project for a number of reasons, the main one being that the industrial development which would arise would mean far more in the way of traffic to the railways than any loss that might occur.
My hon. friend speaks of the cost, and asks what studies have been made as to the benefits likely to be derived.


Howard Charles Green: This is all quite interesting, but I did not mention the cost.


Lionel Chevrier: That was in the brief.


Howard Charles Green: I referred not only to the benefits. What I had in mind was to get the general picture of the effect of the seaway upon our transportation system. I am not taking one side or the other; I simply want to get from the minister an indication of the general effect

upon our transportation system of the construction of the seaway.


Lionel Chevrier: I was trying to get to that, perhaps not in a manner which was entirely suitable to my hon. friend. What I intended to say was that, on the economic side, studies were made over a considerable length of time by various groups in the country. These studies were made by boards of engineers, both United States and Canadian; by engineers from Ontario and Quebec, and by other bodies. Following the studies which were made from an engineering and economic standpoint in those years it was felt that the project would be of great benefit to the economy of Canada. That view has been strengthened: by the development of natural resources which have taken place since that time.
It was on the basis of those studies, both economic and engineering, that two governments of this country, one headed by a former prime minister, the late Lord Bennett, and1 the other headed by the former prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, entered into a treaty and an agreement with the United States for the joint development of the power and navigational facilities. I am sure that the studies which have been made clearly indicate that greater trade would flow on the St. Lawrence seaway because of this development-greater trade from the natural resources in certain parts of Canada, such as the iron ore deposits in Labrador and1 Quebec, and elsewhere-and also because of the great power development which would bring industry in its wake. Those are the main things that come to my mind at the moment.


Howard Charles Green: Is it expected, for example,
that ocean freighters will come right up through the seaway system to Toronto, Windsor, Fort William and Port Arthur, or will there merely be transfers from oceangoing freighters to great lakes cargo vessels? Studies must have been made as to what is apt to happen to our traffic. If oceangoing vessels are to carry the freight right up to Fort William and Port Arthur, then of course that would affect very much the freight carried by the railways across Ontario. What is expected to follow from the construction of the seaway?


Lionel Chevrier: That is a rather difficult
question to answer. While the seaway, if developed in accordance with the plan, will thereafter be twenty-seven feet in depth, there are many ocean-going vessels that will not find it profitable to navigate the entire route because of the draft and because of the length of time it would take to go through the lakes. In that respect I do
Supply-Transport
not think a great deal of change will take place. But there are other vessels, such as trampers, that may find it economical to move right through the canal system up into the great lakes area, and if they do they probably will seek trade in that area. The studies which have been made indicated that it might be possible to bring grain in lake carriers right through to Montreal, unload there or at Quebec, Three Rivers, Sorel, places of that kind; then go on empty to the Seven Islands area; there pick up a return cargo of iron ore and come back through the canal systems. Of course ships will have to be built to accommodate that kind of cargo and that kind of trade. I understand that certain companies have plans and specifications in readiness in case the project is proceeded with.


Howard Charles Green: I presume the iron ore would
be carried back to United States ports?


Lionel Chevrier: Or Canadian ports, if the
industrial development necessitated that movement on our shores.


Howard Charles Green: Under present conditions most of the iron ore would go to United States lake ports.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: And I presume would be
carried in United States bottoms.


Lionel Chevrier: Not necessarily. The companies I had in mind a moment ago were Canadian.


Howard Charles Green: Iron ore from the Mesabi range is carried in American bottoms.


Lionel Chevrier: It is also carried in Canadian boats, but what I had in mind a moment ago was that certain Canadian steamship companies already have plans in readiness for the movement of that ore.


Howard Charles Green: What is the estimated cost of the St. Lawrence waterway, and what proportion of that cost is to be paid by Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: The latest estimate I have-* and of course I speak from memory-is in the neighbourhood of $860 million, of which Canada would be responsible for about $130 or $140 million. Mind you, that is after giving credit for the amounts we have spent on the Welland canal and the upper reaches of the lakes, and the power development.


Howard Charles Green: How long would it take to complete the seaway?


Lionel Chevrier: It is estimated it would take about five years.


Howard Charles Green: Is the Canadian government not having any engineering surveys made, or making any preparations of the kind for this

Supply-Transport
waterway? Apparently Canada is committed to the project, and is merely waiting for agreement by the United States. What steps are being taken by the government by way of preparation?


Lionel Chevrier: First of all, the surveys of which my hon. friend speaks have already been made. The plan is a single-stage control scheme that has been approved by provincial and federal engineers. That is already in existence at the plan stage. In the Department of Transport there has been established a special projects branch which will deal with the expropriation of the necessary lands and with all problems assigned to the federal government under the agreement. Beyond that I can say no more.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any engineering work being done on the plan at the moment?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Howard Charles Green: Is any engineering firm doing any work on it at the moment?


Lionel Chevrier: No. There could not be any until the scheme had been approved between governments.


Howard Charles Green: Has there been any arrangement made with any engineering firms for work on the seaway?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Howard Charles Green: The government is just sitting and doing nothing whatever about these plans in the meantime.


Lionel Chevrier: No, the government is not just sitting. The government is holding itself ready, as I stated a moment ago, by the establishment in the department of a special projects division to deal with matters concerning expropriation of the land, and the moment the agreement is approved, if it is, by the United States government, it will have to be approved by this house. It will take some five or six years to complete the project, so there will be plenty of time to appoint engineers and to proceed with the work that concerns the federal government. There are many works concerning provincial governments in connection with the joint project.


Howard Charles Green: Has the government had
any reports from engineering firms on this project?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Howard Charles Green: And has no engineering firms engaged to work on it?


Lionel Chevrier: No, but it has a chief engineer in the department whose business for the last twenty-five years has been to deal specifically with the St. Lawrence waterway. He has

kept himself well informed, is in contact with the United States authorities on the other side, and is quite familiar with the project as a whole.


Mr. Gillis:: I hate to break up this conversation, but I have been waiting anxiously to find out whether the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra is for or against the project.


Howard Charles Green: I have been trying to keep an open mind and get the facts.


Clarence Gillis: I have not kept an open mind about it, and I definitely want to put that on the record. I also want to make it quite clear that I am speaking for myself on this occasion. Other members of this group may have other opinions. They live in other parts of the country.
The St. Lawrence waterway project is not a new one. During the last twenty-five years I have heard some very active discussions about it. So far as my memory serves me there has always been total opposition to this project on the part of the maritime provinces. The wisdom of those who were opposing it twenty-five years ago has been well demonstrated to me since coming to this house. The government of the United States was never very much interested in completing this project until the development of the iron ore deposits in Labrador and Ungava took place. With that field of raw material available, the United States is in a great rush to have this project completed.
In his brief statement the minister made it quite clear, in so far as Canada is concerned, the thinking on this project, from either a transportation or an economic aspect, ceases completely at Montreal. No thought has been given beyond Montreal at all. The minister clearly stated that once this waterway was opened it would mean that a certain type of ship could land a cargo of grain in Montreal, then the boat could pick up a cargo of iron ore and take it back to the United States or to other parts of Canada. I am not blaming the minister, but that clearly indicates that the minister has taken the advice of his engineers and departmental officials, and he is merely repeating what he has heard in discussing the subject. There is hardly any thought on the subject east of Montreal. I should like to remind the minister that there are four provinces east of Montreal. People live there, work there and pay taxes; and they should be given some consideration.
What does this development mean to the maritime provinces? It means that this mode of transportation will replace transportation by railroad. I am glad to note

that the railroad workers are objecting to it in their briefs. They know what will happen. The whole development is designed to make cheaper transportation available, and it is designed to tap the Labrador resources for the benefit of the United States. I also oppose it from that angle, that it is going to mean a curtailment of transportation and the laying off of railroad workers. The most important objection I have to it is that it is tapping resources in Canada, and making them available cheaply to the United States when they should have been developed by Canada.
Then, I am concerned about the coal industry of the maritimes. Twenty or twenty-five years ago I heard that the only reason that we have an economic market for maritime coal in Quebec is because there is no water route into that market from the United States coal fields. The development of the St. Lawrence waterway would mean that United States coal could be shipped in to replace that portion of the Quebec market now supplied by the Nova Scotia industry. The whole trend of thought, so far as the development of Canada is concerned, has been and still is detrimental to the maritime provinces. When the question of decentralization was being discussed, I mentioned the St. Lawrence waterway briefly. The Prime Minister wanted to know whether I was for it or against it. I am very definitely against it, because clearly no thinking is being done east of Montreal. The whole trend is to forget the eastern part of the country. Every economic development that has taken place has been designed, not to promote the welfare of the maritimes but to cripple what is already established there.
This cheap means of transportation means the carrying of iron ore up the St. Lawrence to the United States, when it might have been shipped by rail. This would mean that railroad workers would be laid off east of Montreal, and that would result in a continuation of the centralization of industry in the central part of Canada and the United States. In discussing this project not long ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce publicly stated that if the St. Lawrence waterway is not developed some of the steel plants in the central United States and central Canada might have to shift to the Atlantic seaboard. That is exactly what I have been advocating. With ore available in that part of the country, with about ten per cent of the population unemployed in that area now, with coal available, there should be an expansion of the steel industry in that area.	The minister makes it quite
Supply-Transport
clear that that is the thing he is trying tc prevent by the development of the St. Lawrence waterway. As a representative of the maritimes, I am not prepared to vote the Canadian taxpayers'' money to further a project that has as its only purpose the crippling of that part of the country which I represent. I agree with the member for Vancouver-Quadra when he said that a committee should be appointed, either a committee of this house or a commission of some kind, for the purpose of examining the economic aspect of this particular project, not as to its effect on the Toronto-Montreal area but as to its effect on the area from Vancouver to Newfoundland.
I am afraid that most of the thinking on any of the economic developments of the future, now as in the past, ceases at Montreal. Canada seems to be from Montreal to the other side of the Ontario border. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, I want to state emphatically that I think a committee of some kind should be set up to ascertain all the facts in connection with this project, and . see that it is developed to the best advantage of the whole of Canada, not just a section of Canada. I am going to continue to oppose it. This afternoon the minister made it quite clear that the thinking stops at Montreal. I believe the time has come when members of this house who represent ridings east of Montreal should be asserting themselves on matters of this kind. If they do not the result will be destruction of the part of the country from which they come.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member would not want to attempt to have me say things that are not on the record, and which I certainly did not say in my opening remarks on this item. In the first place, we are discussing an item that has nothing to do with the St. Lawrence waterway. This is an item of $10,000 covering St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations. When the St. Lawrence waterway is up for discussion in this house, that will be the time for the house to decide whether or not it is advisable to have a committee to discuss the economic, engineering or other aspects of it. If the hon. member is of the opinion that I believe the thinking begins and stops at Montreal, he is entirely mistaken. If he believes that I am echoing the views of the officers of the Department of Transport, he is also entirely mistaken. I was born with this question, and I have discussed it for years. The thinking of the officers in the department has had no influence, in so far as my opinions on the project are concerned. My friend has discussed it from one point of view, that is from the navigational point of

Supply-Transport
view. But that is only a small part of the advantages which are to be derived from this project. Many of the advantages, and perhaps the greatest-although I do not say they are- are the advantages 'arising out of the power development. Surely it must be the wish of members of parliament to see to it that when power is available in the country it should be developed because of the great benefits and advantages that will be derived not only by the people residing in the immediate area where the power will be developed but by the nation as a whole.
I think that the thinking of my hon. friend is that which existed in this country twenty-five or fifty years ago. But that thinking has changed today. From one part of Canada to the other, where there are power and navigational facilities that can be developed, I believe they should be developed. I do not think, as my hon. friend seems to believe, that this development will have the effect he thinks it will have upon the maritime provinces; because the arguments he used are exactly the same arguments which were used against the 14-foot draft canals on the St. Lawrence many years ago. In those days the railways were drastically opposed to the development of those canals because they said it would take traffic away from them. The point is that it has brought traffic to the railways and today you find both the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway of one mind on this development because unquestionably it cannot do anything else but bring great benefit to Canada.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to ask the minister one question. Can he tell me briefly what benefits the development of the St. Lawrence is going to bring to the maritime provinces, either from a power standpoint or in the development of any section of the maritimes?


Lionel Chevrier: The point my hon. friend was making was that we should not do this in central Canada because it would be detrimental to the maritime provinces. I am not admitting that it is detrimental to the maritime provinces. If my hon. friend states that it is, it would be for him to substantiate that assertion.


Clarence Gillis: The minister has not refuted anything I said.


James Sinclair: It is good for all Canada.


Mr. Nowlan:: Without necessarily associating myself completely with the hon. member for Cape Breton South in his statement that all thinking ceases at Montreal, I want to associate myself with him by saying that I believe that the development of the St.

Lawrence waterway as a power-plus-navigation project would be extremely detrimental to the maritime provinces. I do not believe that the hon. member for Cape Breton South is speaking in the language of twenty-five years ago when he makes that statement. I think he is speaking in the language of today. I believe that is an opinion that is shared by all people of all parties in the maritimes. There are two phases to this problem. The minister has stressed the necessity for power development. *With that I do not think anyone will quarrel. It is true' that it will probably add to the industrial expansion of elephantine proportion that the central provinces are enjoying today, and that they will become more and more developed industrially, perhaps at some expense to the rest of Canada. But with that we cannot quarrel. If it is in the nature of events for the industrial development to be centred here because of the development of power, that is one thing. But I think that the situation is confused because, despite the statement of the minister and his emphasis on power, he will agree that the two were taken together and that any surveys which have been made and anything which has been done heretofore have been in contemplation of both navigation and power. If the minister would assure this committee that any development that will take place on the St. Lawrence will be that of power alone, without development of navigation, then at least I do not think we as Canadians can conscientiously oppose it, because what is for the good of part of Canada is probably good for the whole development. But there can be no question in the world that the development of navigation on the St. Lawrence, as contemplated by some of the idealists, would be extremely detrimental to the maritimes. You have the outports there which you used during the time of war-Halifax, Saint John and other eastern Canadian ports-which suffer enough today from lack of traffic and which would be prejudiced still more if this development should take place.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South suggested that there would be a migration of steel. I have here the exact statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He says that the St. Lawrence waterway must be built and that without this development the steel industry now centred on the great lakes will have to migrate to the Atlantic coast.
What a tragedy that would be! Just imagine, Mr. Chairman, the steel industry having to migrate to the Atlantic coast! Why, it would be a terrible thing, would it not? It would be a tragedy apparently beyond compare, in the minds of some people. I do not

think it would be so devastating. No one of course suggests or believes that it would migrate to the coast. There still would be plenty of room for development of the steel industry on the great lakes. But certainly a healthy expansion of the steel industry on the Atlantic coast would be extremely desirable. I think any fair-minded Canadian would agree with that statement. I must say that I found people from Ontario, Quebec and all parts of Canada perfectly fair in their attitudes towards this matter, at least in their statements and in their thinking; although when it comes to a practical application of it, sometimes it does not work out in quite the same way. We have on the east coast the ore, the gypsum and the coal and there should be established a steel industry much larger than the one we have today, one which can enjoy export markets, which will provide a market for our agricultural products. We have the Atlantic ports which, as I say, will suffer because of this canal and which today offer us some market.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the hon. member permit a question?


George Clyde Nowlan: Surely.


Lionel Chevrier: Will he say how the maritime provinces will suffer because of this development?	.


George Clyde Nowlan: How?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


George Clyde Nowlan: Because I am sure it will prejudice shipments going through the ports of Halifax, Saint John, Sydney and other Canadian ports; because railway traffic would diminish. Therefore railway freight rates would be increased and traffic which we ship today in and out would pay heavier costs. It would1 prejudice the steel industry now situated in Sydney and would prevent the natural and proper expansion of that industry which would take place if it were not for the further development of this canal. As the hon. member for Cape Breton South said, certainly it is a strange coincidence that we have this impetus today on the development of the canal once you find the iron ore in Labrador. There can be little doubt but that there is some association between the two. The emphasis which is placed on that now and the haste with which it is considered has some relationship to the fact that this ore will now be taken to central Canadian points and on the great lakes rather than manufactured on the Atlantic coast.


An hon. Member:: And to United States ports.


George Clyde Nowlan: Yes, and to United States ports, probably on the great lakes.
Supply-Transport
We have heard suggestions to the effect that this canal is essential to the development of our war effort. Let us not have that, Mr. Chairman. If this canal is essential to the development of the industrial life of Canada, that is one thing. But let us not camouflage it behind statements associating it with essentiality to our war effort. Any war effort that this country may make will be based on the sacrifice of the people and the desire to serve, as it has been in the past two wars, and will have no relationship whatsoever to the development of this canal.
As the minister knows, the transportation problems of the maritimes are extremely serious. We have the fact now that our long, attenuated Canadian National system, built because of apprehended war seventy-five years ago, is casting a heavier burden on transportation in the maritimes than it properly should cast. Certainly any taking away of traffic from it would simply add to that burden. If, as and when proper surveys are made, and it is determined that this project must go ahead, I suggest that there should be a division between the navigation and the power development, that we should be given the information as to what would be the cost of the potential power developments on the river and what would be-and of course this is easily available, I presume- the power development. I am sure that could be proven to be economically feasible. I should also like to know what would be the additional cost of providing navigation facilities necessary for modern traffic and what would be the potential traffic using those facilities. When that information is available, this committee would then be in a position to pass some independent judgment on the matter. It is all right for the minister to say that this is five years in contemplation. It is nothing of the kind. We are voting now an estimate of $10,000 for preliminary surveys and we are at least to some extent approving of the principle of at least investigating it. Let us investigate, Mr. Chairman. Let us have it clearly understood in this house that before any investigations are summarized, before any judgments are passed thereon, the whole matter will be considered by a competent committee of this house and a decision arrived' at on the basis of the national benefit to this country, and not of any sectional advantage which may develop therefrom.


Lionel Chevrier: I think perhaps I might again call the attention of the committee and of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken to the fact that he is under an entire misapprehension as to what we are voting at the moment. He seems to be of the opinion that

Supply-Transport
we are voting on the St. Lawrence seaway project. We are not. He has turned his whole argument in that direction.
In so far as the project itself is concerned, if the hon. member wants a breakdown of the cost and the traffic, that is easily available in the department, and I shall be glad to let him have that information if he so desires.


George Clyde Nowlan: I would appreciate it.


Lionel Chevrier: But I should like to draw one or two things to his attention. First of all, he has been in this house before and this item has been up for at least five years. The sum of $10,000 has been voted for these surveys, and I have never heard him make any objection to this item, certainly not the vehement objection which he makes to it today.


George Clyde Nowlan: If I may interrupt, I was here only once before, and the house dissolved so quickly that we did not vote these items, and that is why I did not have a chance to speak on it.


Lionel Chevrier: I remember that on one occasion during the consideration of my estimates, and at the very time that these items were up for discussion, my hon. friend spoke at great length on the Maritime Freight Kates Act. While he may have been here for a short time, I do know that he has not discussed it before. So that there will be no misunderstanding about it, let me assure him that the party of which he is a member has been strongly in favour of this project, and the government headed by the Right Hon, Mr. Bennett signed a treaty with the United States approving it. We are not discussing the treaty, and neither are we discussing the terms or the project. What we are doing is considering an item of $10,000 for ship canal surveys.
My hon. friend says that it is not essential for defence, and. laughs it off as if it were more or less a farce. Well, the joint board of defence, composed of both Americans and Canadians, have decided in their formal meetings that the development of the St. Lawrence waterway is essential for the defence of this country. A former president of the United States has so stated, and so has the present President of the United States. The joint board of defence has declared that not only is it essential for the defence of this continent, but also it is essential from the point of view of the economy, and it is also essential from the point of view of power, because when there is in this country a province whose people state that unless they have power within the next four or five years they will have to close down, or at least curtail power facilities, and by inference industrial

advantages to that province, I do not think that any parliament can refuse to take cognizance of that fact. That is the case not only with reference to one province, but it is so with reference to two provinces where power shortage is acute. All of these surveys that have been made indicate clearly that this project is essential from the point of view of defence, from the point of view of economy, and from the point of view of power. But, Mr. Chairman, I should like to get back to the purpose of this vote, which after all is the small amount of $10,000 for the purpose of making surveys and investigations. After all, the United States is spending at least a million dollars for this very matter, for which we have in our estimates the small sum of $10,000. I do not know how it is that we got off on the discussion of a project which is in no way before the committee -under this item. If hon. members want to debate the question of the advisability of making the surveys, that is another matter altogether, but that in fact is what the item is about.


Howard Charles Green: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The minister has mentioned several times that we are not in order in discussing the St. Lawrence seaway, but I would like to point out to him that this item has to do with the St. Lawrence canal system, and I submit that we are perfectly in order in discussing the proposed changes in this system. There is no rule of the house that would prevent us from dis-cussing it on this particular item.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: No ruling has been made.


Major James William Coldwell: I agree with the hon.
member for Vancouver-Quadra. I think the minister would be ill advised to endeavour to get the Chair to rule that this matter should not be discussed now that it has been opened for discussion. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has said, it does provide the small amount of $10,000 for expenses in connection with the St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations. It seems to me that that is what we are discussing.
I think the discussion this afternoon illustrates very clearly how difficult it is sometimes to reconcile various conflicting regional interests in this country. The hon. member for Annapolis-Kings said a few moments ago that if this were purely a power development plan, that would put a different complexion on it. But those of us who come from the prairie provinces are interested in this particular project, not only from the point of view of power, which we recognize as very important to central Canada, but also from the point of view of shipping. We

realize that the ports at the head of the lakes would become ocean ports, that ships that carry grain would be able to pass right from the doorstep, almost, of the grain producing areas of Canada across the ocean, without the transshipment of grain that is now essential, and we believe that should be an economic gain to our part of Canada. And so you see that these considerations very largely cross parties and more or less compel consideration of the problem, I hope, not from each of our sectional points of view, but from the economic welfare of the whole of Canada.
I do not think that we can stop the wheels of progress turning and moving forward. I think that a project of this description has to be considered from the point of view of what will ultimately benefit the whole of Canada. It is true that the great Ungava fields now being developed for iron ore may, I regret to say, see most of that ore shipped to the United States. If I read the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce aright the other day, when he spoke of the movement of the steel plants from the great lakes to the maritime coast, I do not think he was thinking of the maritime coast of Canada. I think he was thinking of moving these plants to the maritime coast of the United States.


Lionel Chevrier: Quite.


Major James William Coldwell: As a matter of fact, there are projects I think in New London, Connecticut, and in other places on the maritime coast of the United States for the establishment of huge steel mills there.
To my mind what we should have done years ago was to have laid out a national plan for the development of our economic resources so that our iron ore and other minerals, our gypsum and other resources, could have been fabricated in Canada, rather than exporting much of this raw material, as we have been doing, to the United States for a large number of years. But while governments may be to blame for that to some extent, let us not forget that Canadians who had the money and the power to undertake these projects are also blameworthy. If Canadian capital had been alive to the advantages that could accrue to it from the development of these resources, I do not think we would be discussing some of these problems in the manner in which they have been discussed this afternoon.
I do not think you can stand in the way of progress. I think that while every attempt must be made to assist the maritime region- the whole region, not only Nova Scotia or Cape Breton or New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland separately
Supply-Transport
-this government should be placing before the house projects and plans for the development of the whole of the maritime area. Then perhaps we should not be thinking in the terms in which the hon. members for Cape Breton South and Annapolis-Kings are bound to think this afternoon.
I do not blame them for thinking the way they were thinking. They think very much as we do in the prairie provinces, that we have not industries there that we should have. I want to see industries established on the prairies; I want to see our water power and irrigation projects developed there. I want to see the Saskatchewan river used, and the waters contained therein. I want to see a larger estimate than we have in the estimates this year for those things. I want to see the Outlook dam proceeded with, not only for irrigation but for power.
Byt all those projects are projects in the interests of all of Canada; because if we build up the economy of one part of Canada we shall indeed be assisting the economy of all parts of Canada. I agree that before we undertake the vast expenditures which are to be made in connection with this project-and the survey is a small thing-the matter must be gone into thoroughly by the house.
I was here some years ago when the agreement with the United States was discussed. I remember distinctly the discussion that took place at that time. I remember that all parties in the house, including opposition parties, were favourable to the development. Let us not forget that since the canals system of Canada was started many years ago or, shall I say, was developed-the Welland canal for example-we have built a large part of our share of that ship canal system. We have already a very large investment in the project.
While I have every sympathy-and of course this is an easy thing to say-with what has been said by the maritime members, yet from the point of view of the whole country I believe Canada would be wise to consider the pressing of this matter with the United States, so that we may have the power, so that we may have .shipping facilities, and so that this country may make great progress as a modern and progressive nation should make progress.


Mr. Fulford:: Mr. Chairman, for once I am glad "to be able to agree with everything the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has said. Representing as I do a constituency on the upper reaches of the St. Lawrence river, this matter of a St. Lawrence seaway has been uppermost in our minds for many years. I remember as a small boy hearing about it.

Supply-Transport
So when an hon. member from Nova Scotia says that the item today is for a preliminary survey, I wish to bring him up to date. I remember well when in 1927 a complete survey was being made under the Canadian chairmanship of the late General Charles Mitchell, then head of the school of practical science at the university of Toronto. I remember the fact that at that time he was working in closest co-operation with the United States army engineers. I believe it was from those surveys it was decided that the Barnhart island dam should be provided for the international section of the St. Lawrence system.
Nothing could more definitely typify the great waste of a great natural resource God has given Canada than to see the mighty waters of the St. Lawrence river flowing by our doors every second of each day, for 365 days in the year.	.


Mr. Wylie:: We also have water going by
our doors, in the South Saskatchewan river, that is going to waste.


George Taylor Fulford: Can you produce 1,100,000
horsepower of electrical energy at one place out in western Canada? Can you produce that out west? In the county of Leeds we will not benefit materially from the navigation end of the St. Lawrence seaway, but we will benefit tremendously from power development. We hope we are looking at this matter in a broader sense than that of just looking after our own interests. We realize that in bringing shipping of the world up to the head of the great lakes it would be of great advantage to this great dominion of ours. Every farmer in the west stands to benefit from it through lowered freight rates. The manufacturers in the east will also benefit. There is hardly a class or a community in Canada that will not benefit materially.
I have always believed in the old adage that what is good for the whole is good for any one part. I cannot see how the argument we have just heard from the maritime provinces is valid. They say that they fear they will lose their shipping. They will still get the shipping they get now during four months of the year-and that is a virtual monopoly and will continue to get it anyway, when the ports are closed on the St. Lawrence. No system has been devised of keeping the great lakes ports open twelve months of the year.
Then, the great ore deposits in Labrador and northeastern Quebec cannot be properly developed and utilized until the great smelters along the great lakes are utilized to the full, through the ore that will come from that section. We need only think of the tremendous amount of $360 million invested

in a railway to bring ore from the fields to Seven Islands harbour.
If we can believe what geologists tell us, the development in that Labrador and northeastern Quebec section represents the greatest iron ore find of the ages. Certainly Seven Islands harbour is much nearer Glace Bay and other ports of Nova Scotia than it is to any port on the great lakes. Naturally all the ore that will be necessary will find its way there, to Nova Scotia. Then, added to that, this vast ore body will be supplying smelters on the great lakes.
In spite of the evidence being given in the United States congress I am told on reliable authority that good grade iron ore is running out in the United States. We know the end is in sight in the great Minnesota Mesabi range. Is it conceivable that a great plan like this can be held up in Canada? We at present are seeing the actions of certain vested interests in our neighbour to the south of us, and I am afraid that some of the arguments I heard this afternoon in the committee sounded very much like the argument we hear to the south of us, in the capital of the great United States of America.


Mr. McCulloch:: The maritime provinces
have shipped all the year round from Halifax.


George Taylor Fulford: I shall clarify what I meant.
I meant to say that there will be four months of the year in which the maritime provinces will have exclusive shipping.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: In British Columbia we would have twelve months.


George Taylor Fulford: I do not think British
Columbia has anything to fear from the St. Lawrence deep waterways. Indeed, that province has everything to gain from it. I would plead therefore with the minister, in as strong language as I can use, that every conceivable consideration be given immediately, as a result of these surveys, and that through our Department of External Affairs strong representations be made to United States authorities to see that this long-kicked-about football is taken out of the realm of petty politics and placed where it should be placed, for the betterment and well-being of the Dominion of Canada and the United States.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Mr. Chairman,
apparently quite a debate is developing on this item. As some maritime members have made a few remarks, I should like to point out that this proposition is causing considerable worry in the maritime provinces. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat has stated that the St. Lawrence waterway must be completed. I do not take issue

with that, but I should like to point out the position in which the maritime provinces are placed.
It has been mentioned during the debate that ore can be carried from Labrador through the St. Lawrence seaway to the head of the lakes. I understand at the present time we are importing considerable steel from the United States. Where steel is manufactured in the central parts of Canada the necessary coal must be imported from the United States. I have always understood that the closer together you can get your ore and coal, the cheaper you can manufacture steel.
We have in the maritime provinces coal of a quality suitable for the manufacture of steel, and the iron ore is available for transportation by water, which transportation can be used twelve months in the year. Our coal cannot find a market any further west than Montreal. It seems logical to the maritime provinces that the ore available there should be manufactured into steel in the maritime provinces. If this ore is taken to the head of the lakes and manufactured into steel in the United States, that steel will be imported back into Canada at a cost 25 per cent greater than it could be manufactured here. It is not easy to explain this issue in the maritime provinces.
Mention has been made of the power development. Any power that has been developed in my province has been developed by the people of New Brunswick, not by the federal government. I do not see how I can go back to the maritime provinces and justify assistance by the federal government for the development of power in the central provinces. I feel that those provinces are in a much better financial position to develop their own power than we are in New Brunswick.
There is a possible power development in my own county, the Passamaquoddy development, which has been under discussion for about twenty years. There does not seem to be the same interest taken in that power development as is taken in the St. Lawrence, and I wonder why. This is a tidal development and there would be no danger of drought or floods, no valuable property would be flooded and therefore no damages would have to be paid. This power development has a potential capacity of over one million horsepower, as great as the potential capacity of the St. Lawrence power development.
When consideration is given to the coal and the facilities for the manufacture of steel that we have, to the population available, which in many cases has had to leave
Supply-Transport
in order to get work in other parts of Canada, I think it will be seen that it is time that serious consideration was given to that part of Canada. I am sure that the arguments that have been used by hon. members from the maritime provinces will meet with the approval of the people down there.
I want to go on record as supporting anything of a general nature that will benefit all Canada, but I do feel that other parts of the country should receive the same consideration. With this ore available I believe that the logical place to manufacture it into steel is the maritime provinces. It is much cheaper to transport a finished product than it is to transport raw material. The materials and the manufacturing know-how are available there and I feel that the maritime provinces are perfectly justified in asking that this industry should be established in that part of Canada.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to say a word or two on this subject which seems to have caused so much controversy among the members of the house. They appear to be divided according to the part of the country in which they live, and I think that is deplorable. I am in favour of the development of the St. Lawrence project in both its power and transportation aspects.
I do not believe that the government under whose authority this development will take place will	allow the development to
adversely affect any other part of Canada. Surely that is not the way the development of Canada should be visualized. It is unthinkable that this addition to the wealth of Canada should be allowed to militate against either the maritime provinces or British Columbia. That can not happen if we have a government that is thinking in terms of Canada and not in terms of local areas and certain vested interests in those areas. That is the way in which this great national development must be approached.
I do not think the plight of the maritime provinces could be any worse than it is now no matter what development takes place in other parts of Canada. I think those maritime members who oppose the development of the St. Lawrence project are standing in their own light when they argue that it would be detrimental to the interests of the maritime provinces. The members on the government side who take that position surely must have little faith in the government they support. If I had so little faith in a government I would not support it at all because it would not be worthy of support
It seems to me that that is a fundamental principle. This parliament is dealing with

Supply-Transport
the affairs of Canada and we must have in mind the welfare of the Canadian people, no matter in what part of the country they reside. We should not permit favourable circumstances in one part of the country to improve the position only of those who live in that section of the country. What would one think of parents who would promote the interests of one member of the family in such a way as to hurt the interests of the other members? You would think they were mighty poor parents, would you not? I would say this is a mighty poor government if, by promoting the development of one part of Canada, it would allow another part to be impoverished. I hope that the government will go ahead with this project in conjunction with the government of the United States, and that it does so with all speed. In the same way I hope that the government will see to it that neither the maritime provinces on the east nor the maritime province on the west are any worse off, and not only no worse off but possibly much better because this development has taken place in central Canada and because of this great addition to the wealth of our country.


Mr. Richard (Gloucester):: As a member from New Brunswick, one of the maritime provinces, I am not opposed to the St. Lawrence waterway development. I think that the whole of Canada will receive some benefit from it. No doubt it will have some repercussions on our international trade so far as the eastern Canada seaboard ports are concerned. I do not share the same view as some others that the mining development of Labrador should be concentrated so that we might become an exporting country in the finished steel product. I suppose we produce about two-thirds of the steel we consume in Canada today, if I am not mistaken as to my figures. Through the development of Labrador we might reach a point where we could produce sufficient in Canada to satisfy our own needs and become an exporting country, but I wish to point out, following the idea of the last speaker, that when it comes to handing out public funds for the development of these great resources we in New Brunswick would say:	Please pass
the dish around a little so that we may have a helping too.


Mr. Carroll:: I did not know the question of the St. Lawrence waterway was likely to come up under the present item. If I had known, there is a good deal of material that I might have placed before the house on the question of the St. Lawrence waterway. About all I want to say at the present time is that I am not against the St. Lawrence waterway having regard to the conditions

under which it has been inaugurated, and the conditions which have been made known to this country in the last four or five years. Twenty years ago, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South said, the mining and steel industries of Nova Scotia were against the inauguration of the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway extending across the United States border. The reason was that they thought their coal could not compete with United States coal. I have had a little experience in this matter.
Some years ago I acted on a commission. At that time the officials of the Dominion Coal Company raised the question of the St. Lawrence waterway. They advanced arguments against the deepening and construction of the St. Lawrence waterway, especially across the United States border. I told them at that time that we would have to give the matter much more consideration, that we did not know enough about it, and that perhaps it was not within the terms of reference. Lo and behold, however, we had meetings with the United States coal operators. The coal that comes into Canada comes mostly from West Virginia and Pennsylvania, and West Virginia and Pennsylvania will not be tapped by the St. (Lawrence waterway. The coal operators in the United States came before our commission and were absolutely against the St. Lawrence waterway for the reason that if it were built they could not compete with Nova Scotia coal.
When our friends in the Nova Scotia coal industry heard this argument they changed front and began to see the light as they should have seen it years ago. Coal export from the maritime provinces to the central provinces of Canada takes place in large quantity during the summer months up the St. Lawrence river to Montreal and farther west. With the aid of certain subventions and tariff protection, plus the fact that the rates were very cheap some years ago, they were practically able to compete with coal coming from the United States. Therefore, so far as the coal industry of Nova Scotia is concerned, the St. Lawrence waterway is going to permit them to ship their coal farther west than they do at the present time. The large barges that leave Sydney, Glace bay, Pictou or the other mining places from which coal is shipped, will have a greater opportunity to go farther inland, and therefore will be able to compete with United States coal more successfully than they can at the present time.
With respect to some of the inland mines, the situation may be a little different but they will ship no less coal in the wintertime than they will when the St. Lawrence is open

because practically all their shipments of coal are by rail from Springhill and certain other mines. I have nothing to say about the shipment of steel. It has always been thought also that the deepening and extension of the St. Lawrence waterway would injure shipping' in the port of Halifax. The other day I put a question on the order paper as to how many bushels or tons of wheat are shipped overseas from Halifax in the summer months when the St. Lawrence is open and how many are shipped in the winter months when it is closed to navigation. The amount of wheat shipped overseas from Halifax at the present time in the summer months is practically negligible. The great bulk is shipped in the winter months when the St. Lawrence is closed. Wheat that is shipped from Halifax in the summer months is mostly taken on as ballast by ships coming in there, and is not generally loaded there by ships coming to this country for wheat.
With regard to the shipment of steel from Sydney, as a matter of fact most of that goes by rail because that is the best way to ship it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member who said that we should approach matters of this kind from the Canadian viewpoint. I am from Cape Breton, and you can call me a maritimer if you like. I agree with everything that gentleman has said, except that we are in a sorry mess down in our part of the country. I want to tell this house that we are as well off in the parts of Nova Scotia with which I am acquainted as the people in any part of this country. We are making as good a living and we are, I hope, living as good lives as most of the other people. We have a good standard of living. I am not saying anything about the maritimes, because I do not know enough about them to ascertain whether or not they are in a sorry plight.
I do not know whether or not this subject should be mentioned now, although I intended mentioning it at some time, but it seems some mention has been made of the iron ore from Labrador. Someone has said that we do not do any thinking in our country east of Montreal. I have been giving this subject of the Labrador iron ore some thought. From the Department of Transport I obtained a map and a plan of that part of the country, including Labrador, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and the St. Lawrence river. I have not that map before me, but I should like to put on the record some facts concerning the distances from the source of this ore to various places in Canada and the United States. The distance between the source of this ore and the strait of Canso is very short. I have a proposition to make, not to the Minister of Transport but
Supply-Transport
to the minister who is looking after the industries of this country today. I would ask him to consider the possibility of establishing a steel industry on the shores of the strait of Canso. We have a harbour to the south which is open in the wintertime, and as good a harbour to the north as there is on the Atlantic coast. The iron ore could be brought in, and we have the finest coal available right there for the making of steel. We have the tremendous deposits of the Dominion Steel Corporation, who are making steel now. It would not interfere one iota with the production of the Dominion Steel Company or any other company we have in this country.


The Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member must realize he is getting rather far afield.


William F. Carroll: I did say that, but this question was brought up by other hon. members in this house who were allowed to continue. I said that I had not intended going into this question, and as a matter of fact I was going to object when this debate started. I did not think this was the proper place to talk about the St. Lawrence waterway. However, the St. Lawrence waterway and this iron ore in Labrador were tied together. One objection to the St. Lawrence waterway was that we were not going to be able to utilize our own iron ore from Labrador in the province of Nova Scotia.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Since the hon.
member has provided this explanation, he may continue. I thought the discussion of the St. Lawrence waterway had been permitted as incidental to the matter under discussion. When the hon. member began discussing the coal industry generally, I thought he was getting rather far afield.


William F. Carroll: One objection to the
St. Lawrence waterway was that it was going to interfere with our coal industry in the maritime provinces. I am not answering that objection, but I am putting forth my own views. I know something about this subject, because I made some study of it, not yesterday or the day before but some years ago. I hope that the minister in charge of production will read my remarks in Hansard tomorrow. I was going to speak on this subject during the budget debate, but I did not want to let this opportunity pass without showing that the people of this country are thinking about the maritime provinces. They are thinking of ways and means by which the iron ore from Labrador may be utilized right on the island of Cape Breton.
I am not asking that this be a government undertaking, Mr. Chairman. Today there is a large amount of capital in Great Britain

Supp ly-Transport
and the United States. The steel industry was taken away from the industrialists in Great Britain, and I understand a large amount of that capital would be available for investment in the steel industry in this country. There is something to which the good minister might give his attention. We are not looking to the government to build this industry. Governments have been building too many things in this country. The people have been too lazy to look around, or else they did not have enough vision to look after this industrialization.
Mr. Chairman, when the manufacture of steel was first started in this country by the Steel Company of Canada and the Dominion Steel Company, the government gave them assistance in the form of a bounty on steel rods that were to be used in the manufacture of other products in Canada. This bounty was continued until 1910 when Mr. Fielding eliminated it. The steel companies have received other forms of assistance, but all I would ask is for the minister to put this picture before some of the moneyed people in the United States, Great Britain or Canada.
Again I suppose it is not according to common sense or the rules of the house to say anything here about the strait of Canso. Whether the causeway-and that is what should be built-is built across the strait of Canso or not, this problem about which I am talking is absolutely feasible. If the causeway were built, it would mean a better harbour at that point. I should like to say again that we have free and easy access by water from the strait of Canso to Belle Isle. We have easy transportation from the strait of Canso to any part of the world. Of course I am going to take this matter up further with the good minister but I thought at this stage, when people are saying that there is no thinking about it, and that nothing is being thought about Nova Scotia, I should point out that, whether their ideas are right or not or whether they have any common sense behind them or not, there are in this chamber some people who are thinking about our own people in our own country down there.


Angus MacInnis: I do not want to add anything to what I have already said on this subject, but I want to make a brief reply to the exception that the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond took to my remarks with regard to economic conditions in the maritimes.


William F. Carroll: I did not say anything about the maritime provinces. I was referring to the place I know about, the island of Cape Breton.


Angus MacInnis: I was not quite as parochial as the hon.. member for Inverness-Richmond. I included the whole of the maritimes; and I am not speaking from hearsay. As the hon. gentleman may know, I had the honour and the good fortune to be born in the maritime provinces. I left my home in Prince Edward Island, the most beautiful of the maritime provinces, and sought my livelihood in other parts of this great country. If my leaving the maritimes were just an isolated case that would not prove anything. But for the last seventy-five years at least the great majority of the boys and girls born in those provinces have left them and have added their wealth of brain and brawn not only to other parts of this Canada of ours but to the United States as well,-of course to the great advantage of those other parts of Canada and to the United States. There can be no doubt that the maritime provinces have suffered in their economic development because of the concentration of business in the two central provinces.


Mr. Blackmore:: I just wish to say that the sooner the St. Lawrence project can be finished, the better we shall be pleased. As to this small item, I hope that we may pass it as soon as we may after giving everyone a chance to express any views that he may wish to express. I believe that what helps one part of Canada must help all of Canada. I have no objection to helping my good friends in Quebec and Ontario to develop their provinces into a more powerful area. I think that is entirely in the best interests of Alberta.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I had not intended taking part in this debate at all, and I would not do so had it not been for one or two remarks made by the hon. member for Leeds. I agree with the minister that this is not the proper place to discuss these waterways. However, the hon. member for Leeds said that he saw a great deal of water going to waste down the St. Lawrence river every day. I wish the hon. member would come out west. We in the southern part of Alberta could show him a great deal of water that has been going to waste for years. We could have used that water. I believe that any water that goes to the sea without being used is a public waste. We could have used plenty of that water around the Medicine Hat area perhaps, as the hon. member for Leeds has said.


George Taylor Fulford: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I say that if the hon. member had been in the house the other night when I was speaking about the $65 million payment to the western farmers, he would know that I mentioned that very point; I said that money should be used on the development of the waters of the west.
fMr. Carroll.]


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I am glad the hon. member raised that point about the $65 million to the western farmers because he is one member who voted against that and he spoke against it too, if my memory serves me correctly.


John Lambert Gibson: That is because it was a handout.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I imagine that if the hon. member for Comox-Alberni who has just interrupted could ship some logs down the St. Lawrence waterways free, he would be quite in agreement with it.


John Lambert Gibson: I would pay whatever the tariff was.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: That is good. However, I think that the development of this project would assist in the development of all of Canada. I am sure that every western member would want to see the development of this project, and I am sure it will have our support.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister once again whether he will give consideration to having this question studied by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines?


Lionel Chevrier: What question?


Howard Charles Green: Particularly just what the
effect of the seaway would be on our transportation system. As he will have seen from the discussion this afternoon, there is intense interest in the whole subject. One does not often see a debate flare up as has the debate this afternoon. There is no doubt that one of these days this question will be coming before the house, perhaps in great haste. I think the reasonable thing to do is to have the question considered by the standing committee of the house so that we would at least get a background of information. We could hear representations from the various people who are interested, and in that way it would be far more likely that the house would eventually reach the best conclusion having regard to the interests of Canada. As a matter of fact, in that way we may prevent the hard feelings and controversy that would follow for many years if the scheme were put through in a rush, without consideration of that type being given to it.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know what it is that I could refer to a committee, whether it be the railways and shipping committee or the railways, canals and telegraph lines committee. Certainly it is not anything that is under this item. I would not be disposed to refer to a committee the subject matter of this discussion because it is not before the house. When the subject is before the house, I am sure the house will want to have it studied by a committee such as the one
Supply-Transport
my hon. friend has in mind. If the project is approved by the United States congress, then of necessity it must come before the House of Commons, where it will be submitted to a committee. If it is not approved, then this government will have to indicate what its policy is.


Howard Charles Green: I had in mind a study of the impact of the St. Lawrence seaway on the transportation system of Canada. I think that sums up the thought I had in mind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine services-
476. Marine services administration, including agencies, $513,944.
Mr. Pearkes:: May I draw the attention of the minister to a situation which has occurred on the west coast since the introduction of the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act providing additional means for the safety of life at sea. At the time I called attention to the danger of the curtailment of services to some of the smaller islands lying between Vancouver island and the mainland. I regret to say that my forecast has proved to be only too accurate and that there has been a considerable curtailment of the steamship services between Vancouver island and the gulf islands, and between the mainland of British Columbia, from the port of Vancouver, and those same gulf islands, a situation which is causing considerable hardship upon the residents of those small islands. It has been necessary for the Canadian Pacific Railway to take off one of their older ships and to curtail their services because it would not justify that company to go to the expense of remodelling the ship. Actually, the service between the gulf islands and Vancouver island and the mainland is totally inadequate and is less today than it has been for the last sixty years. If this condition has not been brought before the minister's department I would appreciate it very much if it might be looked into to see whether something could be done to assist in the provision of a better service for the gulf islands.


Lionel Chevrier: The subject to which my
hon. friend refers was brought to my attention by a delegation from one of the operating companies affected. They had been in communication with the maritime commission on the matter of the service, and they indicated to me, and to the commission I believe, that unless they received a subsidy they would have to curtail their services in the northern part of the run. All I could indicate to them at the time when they did come-the decision of the maritime commission had not yet been handed down-was

Supply-Transport
that I would pass along to the commission their representations, because the commission is charged with the responsibility of deciding whether or not a subsidy is warranted. In view of what my hon. friend has said, if the commission had not yet handed down their decision, I shall see that his observations are brought to their attention.


George Randolph Pearkes: Thank you very much.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
479. Construction or acquisition of vessels, as detailed in the estimates-capital, $2,254,800.
George Randolph Pearkes: Can we get a little information about this item? In the past there has been a good deal of discussion regarding the provision of a coastguard service. During the last year we have seen very definite steps taken in the direction of co-ordinating the existing services. I should like to express my appreciation, on behalf of the people of the west coast of British Columbia, for the services which have been rendered during the last year, and which have been more effective owing to the co-ordination which has taken place. I understand that provision is being made to extend the service still further. Is that correct?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. First of all, the matter is no longer under my jurisdiction. Up until last year it was; but now, because of the recommendation of the commission, it is no longer my responsibility. It is the responsibility of the Minister of National Defence.
I am very happy to hear my hon. friend speak thus, because his colleague from Anna-polis-Kings spoke very strongly last night about the lack of a coastguard service. I wish the hon. member for Nanaimo would indicate to the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings what the position is on the west coast.


George Randolph Pearkes: I do not know anything about the east coast.


Lionel Chevrier: What he does know-and I thank him for having said so-is that because of the co-ordination of services which was instituted last year, a new service has been established under the aegis of the Royal Canadian Air Force, namely, the search and rescue division. That division will coordinate all of the ships in all of the departments, together with national defence vessels, and ships privately operated. I have a detailed statement here of the instructions that have gone out to each of the departments and to each of the agencies concerned, so that there will be complete co-operation.
I think my hon. friend deserves some credit for the interest which he has taken in this in the last few years, and we have given careful consideration to the representations which came to us from the west
coast, as well as to the statements which he made from time to time in the house. I would be glad to show him this statement. It is rather lengthy to put on record, but it certainly would indicate to him the attention which the interdepartmental committee on search and rescue gave to this very vital problem.


A. Earl Catherwood: Just one question on that: does that coastguard service apply to inland lakes as well?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it does, because one of the stations designated in the plan is at Trenton. Therefore it has to do with casualties and ships in distress on the lakes as well. May I answer the questions that my hon. friend asked some time ago in connection with the Rideau canal. He inquired as to the number of boats that passed through the locks of the Rideau canal. I have not the figures for 1950, but the total for 1949 is 18,472. Then he inquired as to the total amount of revenue on the Welland canal. It is $715,402. The total amount of the Rideau canal is $21,690. Then he asked for the breakdown in each case. In the latter it is $8,358 for land; $2,347 for water power; $4,521 for private line service; $2,885 living quarters and $110 for winterizing. Other revenue which is not broken down is $3,467. I think that makes the total.


George Clyde Nowlan: Has the minister available there the list of ships to which he made reference this afternoon, and also last night, which would co-ordinate within this service? I am talking about the ships under his department. I know he has that, and possibly he has them for the other departments as well.


Lionel Chevrier: All the ships under my department, and there are some fifty, are subject to call, no matter where they may be, by direction from the R.C.A.F. or the search and rescue co-ordination division, and all of the ships of the other departments of the government, such as those of the mounted police, the fishing vessels of the Department of Fisheries, and I think the hydrographic service, and all naval vessels. They are subject to the same call as are our own vessels. That makes a substantial total which I have not at my fingertips, but it is quite a considerable number.


George Clyde Nowlan: Of the fifty, how many are on the east coast? Can the minister give us that information?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. I will get it in a moment. Can we go on, and I shall let the hon. member have it?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Aids to navigation-
480. Administration, operation and maintenance, $4,215,904.
Howard Charles Green: There is quite a substantial increase on this item. Can the minister explain the reason for it?


Lionel Chevrier: This item is now a consolidation of the former item bearing the same name, plus the maintenance and repairs to wharves and the breaking of ice in Thunder bay, in accordance with a new policy in treasury board where a division of capital and maintenance and operation are now given to the house in two votes. That is the reason why one finds these two votes here.
The reason for the increase is that there have been increases in salaries and wages. Of the $199,644 increase, $152,650 is for increases in salaries and wages, and the other main item to make up the $199,000 is one of $36,400, an increase in the cost of materials and supplies.


Mr. Dickey:: I should like to say a word on this item about aids to navigation.


Lionel Chevrier: May I be permitted to answer the question of the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings? There are seven ships at the Dartmouth agency, two at the Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, agency, and three at the Saint John, New Brunswick, agency. That makes twelve ships.


John Horace Dickey: This item of aids to navigation is of great interest not only to mariners, properly so-called, but to the fishermen who gain their livelihood by fishing along the shores of the Atlantic coast. From time to time we receive from the fishermen suggestions as to improvements which can be made to the inshore markers, buoys and lights, which they believe are necessary for the safety of their operations.
It has been my experience that the co-operation and interest of the officials of the department who deal with this particular matter have been of the highest order. Apparently they realize the importance of the matter to these fishermen, and in every instance they try to deal in a helpful manner with any suggestions made.
I notice that this item shows a small increase. However, it has been my experience already this year that suggestions which have been made with respect to possible improvements in aids to navigation have been met with the suggestion that the necessity for economy in departmental operations makes it difficult to give consideration to these matters, as has been possible in many instances before.
Supply-Transport
I know we are all interested in the practising of economy and we would hope that the ordinary expenditure in the Department of Transport and all other departments might be reasonably curtailed. However, I would impress upon the minister and the committee the false economy that would result from any unreasonable cutting down in aids to navigation which are useful to fishermen. The safety of the men who carry out these arduous and dangerous tasks is of great importance, and I hope it will be possible to practise economy without in any way jeopardizing the essential requirements of the fishermen.
I know the minister will give this matter his close attention and I know from past experience that his officials, whose hearts are in the right place, will give every possible consideration to the needs of the men who go down to the sea in ships.


George Randolph Pearkes: If this is the item under which we may deal with the operation of wharves it would be the appropriate time to make some observations concerning the Nanaimo assembly wharf.


Lionel Chevrier: There is a later item dealing with wharves.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I should like to subscribe to what has been said by the hon. member for Halifax. I would bring to the minister's attention now a certain matter which would be before him for his consideration. In the bay of Fundy on the Nova Scotia coast extending, so I am told, all the way from Digby up to Spencer island in Minas basin there are no audible warnings or aids to navigation of any kind. In the event of fog it is impossible for shipping or fishing boats to take bearings, and it has been urged upon me that a whistle buoy of some sort should be placed upon those waters along that coast. It has been suggested this could be done most advantageously at Hall harbour, where there is a tidal rip, and where this buoy would be actuated at all times.
I do not know what the cost of such an installation would be, but I do not think it would be a major matter and I know it is something of great importance to all the fishermen who are operating small boats off the coast, as well as to tugboats servicing lumber boats. I would ask the minister to give this matter his attention.


Lionel Chevrier: I have asked my officers to look into it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport Marine services-
483.	Operation and maintenance, including grants and contributions, as detailed in the estimates: rewards for saving life from vessels in distress; subsidies to salvage companies, and the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen as defined in section 296 of the Canada Shipping Act, $390,591.
Howard Charles Green: At the last session there was considerable discussion as to whether there should be a full-time radio operator on ships plying the west coast. At that time the minister said the whole question would be reviewed by his department before the next session of the house. I presume that has been done. We had reports last December of on-the-spot surveys having been made of the whole question. Can the minister tell us the result of those surveys, and whether the department has reached any conclusion?


Lionel Chevrier: A survey has been made, but I have not yet had an opportunity to see the result of it. I have discussed some of the suggestions which came while the survey was in progress, but I have not yet had before me the complete report. Until that time I would rather withhold my comments.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister make an announcement in the matter within a reasonably short time?


Lionel Chevrier: I certainly will be able to reach a conclusion before the session ends, and will indicate in some way or other what the decision is.


John Lambert Gibson: Is this the item under which we discuss lifeboat services?


Lionel Chevrier: No; there is an item later in the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine services-
484.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $21,500.
George Randolph Pearkes: I believe this would be the proper item under which to deal with the assembly wharf. I believe it was in 1933 that the wharf in Nanaimo was first built. It was then recommended that it should handle somewhere in the neighbourhood of 7,500,000 feet, but construction was never completed, so that at the present time it can handle only something less than 4 million feet. There are about twenty-two mills in the immediate neighbourhood, and there is at the present time a great demand for the full production of those mills.
The present situation however is that the capacity of the assembly wharf cannot take care of the production in the area. I am informed that if the wharf were extended so that two vessels could berth at the same
TMr. Chevrier.]
time the capacity would be increased four or five times the present amount. I know representations have been made to the government respecting the possibility of that extension. I understand however that the wharf is operated by the Johnston National Storage Company, either on lease or on some such terms. Would the minister state what those terms are, and whether the government receives more returns if a greater quantity of lumber is handled over the wharf?


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I cannot help my hon. friend much because in the Department of Transport we have nothing to do with the construction or repair of wharves. The construction and repairs of wharves are carried out by the Department of Public Works. We do have a small item of $5,000 for repairs to wharves of less than $50. The matter has probably been brought to the attention of the Minister of Public Works but if not I shall see that it is.


George Randolph Pearkes: Can the minister indicate the terms under which the Johnston National Storage Company operate that wharf?


Lionel Chevrier: When the repairs are done or a wharf is constructed then it becomes part of our job to charge fees and the like. I am not familiar with the terms, but there probably is an agreement with the Johnston people and I will inquire what they are.


George Randolph Pearkes: I should like to know whether there will be a greater return to the government if a greater volume is handled)?


Lionel Chevrier: I will see that the hon. member gets the information.


John Lambert Gibson: I should like to inquire about the number of boatmen employed. I notice the details on page 470 indicate 14 boatmen, but surely there must be other men employed in the lifeboat service. Are these just the ones under the civil service?


Lionel Chevrier: This particular item covers the construction or acquisition of buildings for shore-based lifeboats, one at Bay View, N.S., one at Bamfield, B.C., and the other at Clayoquot, B.C., and also improvements to the life-saving station at Clayoquot.


John Lambert Gibson: Are some of the boatmen under the civil service while others are under prevailing rates of pay?


Lionel Chevrier: The coxswains and engineers are under the civil service, and the prevailing rates men are under the department.


John Lambert Gibson: I gather that the boatmen are under prevailing rates?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


John Lambert Gibson: Are they listed here?


Lionel Chevrier: There are six in the Clayo-quot station and seven in the Bamfield station.


John Lambert Gibson: Are the coxswains and engineers under prevailing rates or under the civil service?


Lionel Chevrier: They are under the civil service superannuation fund.


John Lambert Gibson: I understand that some change has been made with regard to sick leave credits, that this privilege has been taken away from these men. I understand also that they were not given any intimation at all of this privilege being withdrawn and as a result one man has been billed for $49 for seven days' sick leave. The minister will appreciate that these men must go to town for medical services.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not familiar with the details of the case my hon. friend has in mind, but I understand from an officer of the department that all of the information has been provided to my hon. friend and that the case he has in mind can be remedied.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
485.	Pilotage service, including authority for temporary recoverable advances not exceeding $13,000, $367,363.
Mr. McLure:: What pilotage services are rendered in the port of Charlottetown? How many pilots are authorized to operate by the government? What are the qualifications necessary for a pilot's certificate? There has been some dispute among the pilots there and it might be of assistance if I could get that information.


Lionel Chevrier: The pilots of Charlottetown are not under the authority of the Department of Transport. They are under a local authority and operate their own business.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: They can make any charge they wish?


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot answer that as I do not know the details of their bylaws and constitution.


Mr. Herridge:: Does the department permit any person to act as a master of a passenger vessel without having taken an examination and holding a master's certificate?


Lionel Chevrier: While that matter does not come under this item, the answer is no. Those who follow the calling of master or mate must obtain a certificate from the department if they are operating a vessel of over five tons. Of course if it is a rowboat or a small vessel or yacht under five tons there would be no requirement of that kind.
Supply-Transport


A. Earl Catherwood: Have any changes been made in the regulations with regard to fires since the burning of the S.S. Noronic and S.S. Quebec?


Lionel Chevrier: Very substantial changes were made following the report by Mr. Justice Kellock in connection with the S.S. Noronic; in fact practically all the recommendations have been put into effect. The recommendations with regard to the S.S. Quebec have just been received and are being considered now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
River St. Lawrence ship channel service-
489. Contract dredging-capital, $2,013,409.
Mr. Black (Cumberland):: I should like to have the details of the expenditures last year and1 what is proposed to be spent this year.


Lionel Chevrier: This item is in the estimates by virtue of a contract between the government and Marine Industries Limited for the dredging, widening and deepening of the St. Lawrence ship channel for a distance extending from some forty miles east of Quebec to the foot of the Lachine canal at Montreal. The contract was for some $14 million and was entered into after a board of engineers had gone into the matter carefully and recommended it to the government. This amount is the last payment under the terms of that contract and is divided into some ten items. The first is the work in Montreal harbour amounting to approximately $500,000; in the area of Cap de la Madeleine $412,000 to deepen the channel to 35 feet below extreme low water; an item of $253,000 at Cap a la Roche to deepen the channel to 35 feet below extreme low water; an item of $109,000 at Becancour lower traverse to deepen the channel to 35 feet; and several other small items which bring it to the total mentioned in the expenditure.


Percy Chapman Black: These expenditures were all in the St. Lawrence?


Lionel Chevrier: All in the area extending from 40 miles below Quebec to Montreal.


Percy Chapman Black: Is this all new work, widening and deepening the channel, or is it removing debris that has accumulated?


Lionel Chevrier: It is under the terms and specifications of a contract signed some five years ago which was allocated and divided over a period of five years, and1 this is the last of the work that has to be done.


Percy Chapman Black: Is this on a fixed yardage basis, or under what method?


Lionel Chevrier: It is on a yardage basis at unit prices.

S upp ly-Transport


Percy Chapman Black: Fixed at the beginning of the contract?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Percy Chapman Black: It does not change from year to year?


Lionel Chevrier: No, it was fixed at the beginning.


Percy Chapman Black: Does the minister's department have the responsibility for dredging channels in Nova Scotia? There is a case at Parrsboro that I took up with the Minister of Public Works on behalf of the board of trade of that town. It concerns the removal of debris and old material from some wharf or breakwater construction. It was filling up the channel in Parrsboro harbour and interfering with the mooring of lumber barges that gather lumber in the whole area of the upper part of the bay of Fundy for transshipment to steamers that come in there to load. Most of these steamers have to load under anchorage because they are not able to go to wharves. The wharf facilities are not sufficient. This material is filling up the old channels where the lumber barges have been in the habit of mooring, and is making it very difficult for them. Does this come under the minister?


Lionel Chevrier: No, it does not, except with reference to the removal of derelicts or wrecks that might be in the channel.


Percy Chapman Black: This is refuse that came from government property in that area, wharves or breakwaters. Does the minister have responsibility for that?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Percy Chapman Black: Why is it that the Department of Transport has the responsibility for keeping the channel open in the St. Lawrence and does not have the responsibility for seeing that the channels are properly cleared in the smaller outport harbours such as Parrsboro?


Lionel Chevrier: Because parliament decided the channel of the St. Lawrence should be deepened to 35 feet low water datum and decided to expend this sum of money. Otherwise there would be no authority for deepening the channel.


Percy Chapman Black: I think the minister said that the work has been completed. If the work has been completed of dredging the St. Lawrence river to a depth of 35 feet and to the required width, what is the policy of the department with respect to future work?


Lionel Chevrier: In so far as this particular contract is concerned, I do not think I indicated that the work had been completed. 
What I indicated was that this amount will complete the five-year contract which was a contract entered into for the purpose of keeping the channel at the required depth of 35 feet, to widen it in certain areas from 500 to 1,000 feet, and to provide for turnaround areas at certain other points. So far as the future is concerned, there is a committee in the department which will give consideration to whether or not it will be necessary to do additional work in the ship channel because of the continual filling and because of the larger ships that are being used in the traffic.


Percy Chapman Black: Is the minister
in a position to indicate what additional work is projected?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I could not at this time, but when that is decided I will indicate it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway and steamship services-
490. Repairs and expenses in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department, $52,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before the item carries, I
see that there is an amount of $64,000 for repairs and expenses in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department. That is an increase of $12,000 over last year.


Lionel Chevrier: It is a decrease of $12,000.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Oh, I did not have my
glasses on.


Lionel Chevrier: Fine.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Under the law, who is
entitled to the use of a private railway car? What is the average cost per mile of the operation of these cars, and does this item cover the cost of the staff such as the stewards or cooks?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to the last
question is yes, that it does cover that cost. The answer to the first question concerning who is entitled to use these cars is that there are two cars assigned to His Excellency the Governor General, one to the Prime Minister, and one to ministers, and distinguished visitors such as the President of France who was here the other day. He used one of these cars. Car 104 is the one which is assigned to the minister of the department.
I am afraid I have not got the answer to the second question but I will get it from my hon. friend.


Mr. Low:: How many official cars are
there?


Lionel Chevrier: Five.


Percy Chapman Black: Under marine
services, I understood the minister to say there was a special item providing for the building of lifeboats and similar boats.


Lionel Chevrier: We have passed that one.


Percy Chapman Black: What item would that be under?


Lionel Chevrier: Item 484.


Percy Chapman Black: Will the minister state what construction is being provided for so far as these boats are concerned?


Lionel Chevrier: I put that information on
Hansard.


Percy Chapman Black: That is on
Hansard?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Percy Chapman Black: I overlooked the item when it was being discussed. I want to point out to the minister that so far as the construction of wooden boats of this kind both large and small is concerned, consideration should be given to their construction in the shipyards of the bay of Fundy. At Port Greville they have a yard that is as well qualified as any now existing in Canada. They have trained workmen and a long record of splendid work in building boats of all sizes. I understand that no construction is going on there this year, although there has been almost every year. I should like the minister to give special consideration to their claims for work of this kind and to see that they get a chance to bid on any boats of wooden construction required by the department.


Lionel Chevrier: I will be glad to bring this matter to the attention of my officers. I should like to put the answer on the record with reference to the query of the hon. member for Nanaimo having to do with the Johnston company. Operating expenses are paid in accordance with an agreement out of gross receipts. The net receipts are split 60 per cent to the department and 40 per cent to the Johnston National Terminal Company, who are also wharfingers.


John Lambert Gibson: Do they set the rates?


Lionel Chevrier: No, the rates are set by us.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I point out that the item before the committee is 490 under railway and steamship services.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
13, 1951	2011
Private Bills AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



SECOND READINGS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Eileen Florence Alma Hinton	Johnson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Ritchie Leslie McEwen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Catherine Marie Littlefield Stirling.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Marie Rose Vachon Orr.-Mr. Winkler.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



BORDER PIPELINE CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robinson for the second reading of Bill No. 118, to incorporate Border Pipeline Corporation.
Mr. J. S. Sinnott (Springfield):: I should like to say a few words on this bill to incorporate the Border Pipeline Corporation. I notice that this bill was introduced in another place. At page 192 of the Senate report I notice that the Hon. Senator Reid said:
It is proposed that this pipe line be routed to Seattle, and thence northerly to the city of Vancouver. I point out that this manoeuvre is just a little bait-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member should refer to a debate in the Senate, during the present session in any event.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We always like to be put on the right track. However, I am one of those who advocate the building of Canada through the development of our own natural resources before exporting any of those resources.


James Sinclair: Wheat, for example; no export of wheat?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: We are always glad to hear from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. Perhaps he would like to sponsor a bill that would send gas to the United States before it went to the constituency he represents. I would rather see this pipe line built over an all-Canadian route so that it would serve the various parts of British Columbia, including the riding of the member who just interrupted me, before it went to the United States.

Border Pipeline Corporation


James Sinclair: But if you were prohibiting exports from this country, you would not care to prohibit the export of wheat?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: At the moment, so far as wheat is concerned, we are exporting the surplus that we do not need in Canada. When this bill considers exporting gas before Canadian needs are fulfilled, then we are opposed to it. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, there are many in this house who would like to see the pipe line follow an all-Canadian route. We have been assured by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that such a Canadian line is going to be built some time this year.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member is beyond help.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Possibly the member for
Assiniboia could help me at some other time, but I do not think he can contribute very much now.
Mr. Speaker, I happen to be in the fortunate position of having some knowledge of the building of pipe lines. On my farm I have a couple of pipe lines. One of those pipe lines runs from the house down to a coulee, where it takes the wash water.
Then, I have another pipe line that runs from what used to be a sand pit to the river. That is a six-inch pipe line and runs for possibly three hundred yards.
In my constituency there is a third pipe line, the one which happens to be the tap-off from Gretna to East St. Paul and carries a large portion of the oil down to the refinery at lake Superior. This line cost in the neighbourhood of $10 million to build. With this oil coming from Alberta to East St. Paul, it will enable the people of Springfield, thanks to this all-Canadian route, who are using fuel oil to get their fuel much cheaper just as soon as the refinery is in operation. It has been said, and we should endeavour to see that the promise is kept, that gasoline will be selling in my constituency for four or five cents a gallon less next spring. That is a credit to this all-Canadian pipe line.
There is another pipe line in my constituency, and I believe many members do not know about it. I believe it is one of the cleanest pipe lines that there is in Canada, and it happens to supply all the water for the city of Winnipeg. It runs from Shoal lake to the city of Winnipeg and is about eight feet in diameter. This is an all-Canadian pipe line.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is all-Manitoba.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Since my friend has not got the proper information, I may tell him there is a small portion in the province of Ontario.


Many times the member for Assiniboia makes statements in the house concerning box cars and everything else-


James Sinclair: The hon. member is very young.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Of course, he is very young, and he will learn in time. I have a few notes here to refresh my memory. When we are talking about pipe lines, let me say there is more to building a pipe line than most people realize. When a line of this type has to be constructed, the best engineers must be available. I would not have believed it myself-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: It may be a joke to some, but you would never believe that if oil were running downhill through a steel pipe line for a distance of three miles, it would break that pipe. Therefore, in building these lines, it is necessary that previous experience should have a great deal to do with it. There must be certain blocks in these lines in order to keep back the pressure which is so great if these blocks are not in there. Another thing is this. It is quite a difficult job to curve these pipes to pass around the various rocks that are sometimes found in the way, and to go through the various coulees. All these bends must be of the same nature as the land. The parliamentary assistant, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair), gets a big kick out of it. He is at least learning what I am trying to tell him, and I hope that it may be of some value in the future.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is difficult for him to
learn.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: With time, one can learn. I
have found that out myself. Pipe line construction today is a job of a different nature from what it used to be in years gone by. Had we had to build a line of this type, we will say twenty years ago, it would have been something beyond the stretch of imagination of any man. But with the modern machinery we have at the present time, I believe it is evident that mankind is getting to receive more and more the benefit of the scientific brains responsible for the construction of this machinery.
If one were to read this pamphlet put out by the Imperial Oil Company, he would find that it gave him an illustration of how the pipe is laid by modern machinery, how pipe is wrapped in order to keep rust away so that the line will therefore last a number of years. It is really magnificent to know how, during the past decade, modern science has at last found some method by means of which Canadians will have an opportunity to get the benefit of this development.

I have not much more to say about this line, except that I am sponsoring an allCanadian route before any part of a pipe line coming from Canada is built in the United States.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Surely.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is grease ever used in wrapping a pipe line in order to avoid rust?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I am glad that the hon.
member has asked that question. Since he has asked me, I would say that the better the grease, the better the job. If my friend wants further information as to the better types of grease, I can give him that too.
I had a few notes here with regard to this line, and I think I have endeavoured to make some little contribution to this debate. If a large number of hon. members take part in this debate, and if they stick together, I think they can tell the board of transport commissioners in no uncertain terms-and that board is now overburdened and has had a terrible responsibility lately-in order to take the burden off their shoulders, that they will not allow any pipe line to be built outside of Canada before Canada's needs are first met.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this house is a good crucible in which to work out national policies. I believe that it has great value for that purpose and, of course, for many others. But here we are able to discuss the pros and cons of various questions; and, generally speaking, a fairly satisfactory solution is worked out by the members of the house.
I believe most sincerely that the question raised by these bills which seek to grant charters for the building of pipe lines is one of the greatest importance to Canada at this time and is perhaps one of the most important ones we have had to solve for many years. As hon. members of the house will know, that great question is whether our natural resources are to be used first for the benefit of Canadians or whether they are to be shipped abroad in the unfinished state simply because, for the time being, that may seem to be the quickest way to make a little bit of money.
The question is so highly important now because of the place of iron, steel, oil and gas in the economy of any nation. No country in the modern world can become one of the leading nations without those particular resources. It so happens that in recent years Canada has found great deposits of iron ore, of oil and of natural gas. If properly used 80709-128
Border Pipeline Corporation these can help greatly to build this nation into a strong power. Therefore, although this subject has been discussed on numerous previous occasions in the house, I offer no apologies for going over the field again, because we have here before us this evening a bill submitted by a group of men whose purpose admittedly is to build a pipe line by means of which to bring oil from the fields in Alberta down into the states of Washington and Oregon, getting into those states by the shortest route.
It is the second chapter of the story which began two or three years ago. In 1949 a charter was granted to a company to pipe oil from Alberta to the east, the line going down to Superior, Wisconsin, rather than to Fort William and Port Arthur. As Your Honour knows, some of us protested that action. Incidentally, I believe the sponsor of that bill in this house is the same sponsor who is asking for this present charter.


Mr. Robinson:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he not agree that the bill to which he refers, which I sponsored a few years ago, has resulted in great benefits to Canada?


Howard Charles Green: My answer to that question is this:	I believe that had that line been constructed to Fort William and Port Arthur it would have resulted in a great deal more benefit to Canada, not only at the present time but in the years ahead.
In one of the leading United States weeklies at that time-I refer to the V.S. News and World Report-there appeared an article entitled "Canada: oil's new hot spot." With the article there appeared a sketch of Canada showing the proposed pipe line east from Alberta right down into the United States at Superior and another west to the Pacific coast at Seattle, Tacoma and Portland. Tonight we are considering a bill for a group who propose to build the second leg of this particular plan, namely, an oil pipe line to the west coast of the United States.
The company will be known as "Border Pipeline Corporation." The line, as I have said, wall run from Alberta down across the southeastern corner of British Columbia, through the Crowsnest pass and then down into the city of Spokane in the state of Washington and to the city of Seattle where refineries are to be built. I presume it will also go to Tacoma, and a branch goes further south to the city of Portland in the state of Oregon. There is to be a branch to the north ending at or near the city of Vancouver. We have of course no way of making certain that this stub line up to Vancouver will ever be built. If this charter is granted and the company gets permission to go ahead, the

Border Pipeline Corporation final result may be that there will be refineries at Seattle and at Portland, while Vancouver and the rest of British Columbia may be getting their Canadian oil by tanker from the United States.
If the plan of this company is followed out the Vancouver area will be the only portion of British Columbia to get this crude oil by pipe line. There will be no chance to have refineries in any of the interior cities of our province, and at all times the oil which eventually may come to Vancouver will be subject to control by the federal authorities of the United States, and also by the state authorities of the state of Washington, because, as I have pointed out, the line would run through the United States before coming to the Canadian west coast. All this would take place although it is Canadian oil from the adjoining province of Alberta. Furthermore, J3ritish Columbians, being at the end of the line, will be paying the highest price for this Canadian oil.
Another very important feature is that if this oil pipe line is built through the United States it is practically certain that a natural gas pipe line will go by the same route. A year ago we thought that the gas line would be built first, but now there is a rush to get an oil pipe line to the Pacific coast, and it seems certain that the oil will be there ahead of the gas. Should this oil line go through the United States the result will be to make it cheaper to put a gas line by the same route, and we are very likely to find both our oil and our gas going through the United States, and we will only get what there is to run out at the end of the line.
I oppose this bill just as strongly as I possibly can, because I believe it should be a fundamental policy of this nation that Canadian resources must be made available to Canadians first. There could be no objection whatever to selling our surplus to the other nations, and in particular to our good friends of the United States; but they have built their nation on the very policy that I am advocating this evening, and they would be the last people to criticize us for doing the same thing as they have done since the founding of the republic.
Last year in the discussions on the natural gas bill we were met with the argument that there would be a monopoly; that it was not fair to have only one company incorporated. Incidentally, one very important point that I have omitted is that there will be only one oil pipe line to the coast, and only one gas pipe line. I think that is admitted by everyone interested in the question.


George Matheson Murray: That is an unfair
statement to make.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the hon. member for
Cariboo is an authority on this question whom I have overlooked. All the rest of the authorities take the position that there will be only one trunk oil pipe line and one trunk gas pipe line to the Pacific, because there is a market there for only one line for each of those commodities. The hon. member may have misunderstood me. I may not have made my statement clear.


George Matheson Murray: There are other
opinions on that subject, and they are very strong opinions. Many experts have other opinions.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Cariboo
is the member for the constituency which will benefit the most if my arguments are successful in impressing the house.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear. Give him a
chance to speak.


George Matheson Murray: Mr. Speaker,-


Howard Charles Green: Sit down, now. I am always
surprised at the way the hon. member has jumped in from the start of these debates, and is always against those people who are trying to advocate a policy which will benefit his' people more than the people of any other portion of British Columbia.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear; why does
he not make a speech on the subject.


George Matheson Murray: We got the pipe line in spite of you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: If the hon. member for Cariboo wants to make a speech, he may do so.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Not he.


Howard Charles Green: I would be delighted to hear him on this question. There are already two other companies incorporated, which have committed themselves to build an oil pipe line to the west coast by an all-Canadian route. I refer first to the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited, which was incorporated in 1949; the other is the Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company, which was incorporated just a few days ago. Both these companies are prepared and anxious to build an oil pipe line to the west coast by an allCanadian route. Their policy of course is to supply British Columbia first and then to sell any surplus to the United States.
Incidentally there is, I believe, a third company seeking incorporation, known as the Champion Pipe Line Corporation Limited. The bill respecting that company has not yet gone through the Senate. However they are planning to build an oil pipe line to the west coast by an all-Canadian route. If any one

of those companies or, for that matter, any other company-I am not concerned as to which company gets the right to build-or if, in other words, the Canada-first plan is followed, we shall have the work done in British Columbia and jobs will be given to our people. The highway will be built by that company through the Yellowhead pass, where there is no highway at the present time, with the result that Edmonton would be connected directly by road with Vancouver. There would be great expansion in British Columbia. That would take place not only at the coast but, in due course, I believe there would be refineries in such centres as Prince George, Kamloops and possibly some other interior centres. There might even be a refinery at Chilliwack.


James Sinclair: Why?


Howard Charles Green: To commemorate the useful
work done by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) in these pipe line battles.


James Sinclair: And the hon. member for
Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) too; do not forget him.


Howard Charles Green: It would mean not only the
expansion of industry on our Canadian west coast, but also a great impetus to our shipping. We would be in a position to ship oil and other petroleum products to many parts of the world. That is of the greatest importance to us, because Vancouver* and New Westminster are two of Canada's greatest seaports. The flow of commerce in and out of those ports means a great deal not only to the people who live in that vicinity but to people in all parts of Canada. Then as I pointed out earlier there would also be a natural gas line by an all-Canadian route, with all the resulting benefits outlined so carefully during the debates of the last session.
There is another special reason why we are in favour of this all-Canadian route for oil- and here I hope the hon member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) will follow me closely. If there is an all-Canadian route there will be an outlet to the west coast from the Peace river country, which is a portion of his own constituency. At present that great area, partly in British Columbia and partly in Alberta, is sealed off. In that area is the greatest oil potential country in British Columbia. Experts report that there may be great finds there of oil. Already there have been substantial discoveries of gas. Yet that whole area is sealed off today from the west coast. There is no highway and no railway. The only way in which the hon. member's constituents can come out from the Peace
Border Pipeline Corporation river district in British Columbia to Prince George, which is also in the hon. member's constituency, is by air or on foot.


James Sinclair: Or the John Hart highway.


Howard Charles Green: The John Hart highway is not yet completed, as the hon. member for Coast-Capilano knows. A highway would be completed if either a gas or an oil pipe line were to go from the Peace river area to the Canadian west coast.
These facts have been clearly in the minds of the legislators of British Columbia. Mr. Braden, the member for Peace River in the provincial legislature


George Alexander Cruickshank: And a good one.


Howard Charles Green: -which, again, is a portion of the federal riding of Cariboo, presented a resolution in the British Columbia legislature less than a month ago. It was passed unanimously by that legislature on March 28. And believe me, when any legislation or resolution goes through the British Columbia legislature unanimously in this year of 1951, it has to be good.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Would the hon. member permit a question?


James Sinclair: Of course.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is capable of speaking for himself. Has the hon. member ever heard the provincial member for that district express his opinion about the lack of support of the all-Canadian route in Ottawa?


Howard Charles Green: If I had heard the comments
of the provincial member for Peace River, I am sure they would be unparliamentary.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear. I can tell
you what he said about it.


Howard Charles Green: Here is the resolution passed
unanimously two weeks ago by the British Columbia legislature:
Whereas this legislature at its last session unanimously passed a resolution urging adoption of an all-Canadian route through the Yellowknife pass for the proposed transmission of natural gas from the gas fields of Alberta to Vancouver and ether British Columbia points;
A year ago that resolution was passed stating that the gas route should come from Edmonton through the Yellowhead pass.
And whereas important gas discoveries have since been made in the Peace river area of Alberta and British Columbia, which gas can best be marketed via a route through the Pine pass;
And whereas the Alberta Petroleum and Natural Gas Conservation Board has recommended in its interim report of January, 1951 (1) that the only gas available for export is the gas lying beyond economic reach of Alberta consumers, which includes the gas reserves of the Peace river area, and (2) that no gas found in the major gas fields lying

Border Pipeline Corporation in that part of the province from the Edmonton area south to the international border could be allocated to a market outside of the province;
Hon. members who served on the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines will realize that only recently an exception has been made to that rule whereby provision is made to pipe some gas into Montana for war purposes, but only on a temporary basis for a period of five years. Then the resolution goes on:
And whereas the interests of Canada as a whole will best be served if natural gas from the Peace river areas of Alberta and British Columbia is transmitted to its closest markets, namely, British Columbia and the Pacific coast;
And whereas it is vital that the maximum encouragement be given to the discovery and development of the oil and gas resources of this province and to the industrial development of the interior of the province;
And whereas, in view of the foregoing facts, the route which best serves the interests of this province and the dominion as a whole is the aforesaid Pine pass route and such pipe line route having been proposed;
The Westcoast Transmission Company have now switched their gas route from the Yellow-head to the Pine pass route because of the finding of the Alberta petroleum and natural gas conservation board.
And whereas any proposed crude oil pipe line to the Pacific coast should, in the interests of the province, follow an all-Canadian route, and at the same time provide for the marketing of oil found in this province;
And whereas it is proposed to build a crude oil pipe line from northern Alberta to Vancouver via the Yellowhead and Pine routes to provide for marketing such oil.
That is, there would be a main line from . Edmonton and a branch line from the Peace river down through the Pine pass. The resolution continues:
Therefore be it resolved, that this legislative assembly urges upon the appropriate authorities, in the interests of both British Columbia and Canada, the adoption of (1) the Pine pass route for natural gas transmission pipe line and (2) the combined Yellowhead and Pine pass route for the crude oil pipe line, which will provide for the marketing of oil discovered in British Columbia.
That resolution sets out the picture at the present time in Canada's western province and I contend that it should be supported by every hon. member from our province, no matter what his political views may be. The Border Pipeline Company advocates a policy which is just the reverse.
Now is the time for foundation laying. It is not too late to work out the best policy and to follow it. As members of this present parliament we have it in our power to see that a proper policy is followed. Oil being sent to the east is being transported through the United States and we cannot do anything about that now. It may be the policy of the oil

interests to send oil to the west through the United States also just as they have done with the oil to the east. Hon. members need not be surprised if they find the oil interests issuing statements or propaganda that this oil should go down through the United States; that the best thing for Canada would be to have it go through the United States. We should not forget that they are not controlled in Canada. The oil interests are not working for Canada, they are working for their own profits. That should be remembered at all times when national issues are being decided. If more money is to be received by building this oil pipe line directly to the United States it means that much more money for the oil companies. They may well advocate that oil should be brought to the largest market, which undoubtedly is in the states of Washington and Oregon rather than British Columbia, by the shortest possible route, regardless of national interests. They will plead economic reasons and all that sort of thing, but let the members of the house beware.
I hope that the house will make sure that oil being sent to the Pacific coast goes by a Canada-first route. The picture is very well summed up in an article in the Saturday Night of June 20, 1950, entitled, "Pipe Vancouver the gas-but how?" That is not spelled "Howe". This is an article by Michael Barkway, one of the distinguished members of our press gallery, who sums up the question neatly in these words:
It poses the question that has faced Canada throughout her history; shall we let the forces of geography work out our destiny, or shall we bend them to our national designs?
I suggest to hon. members that it is in the national interest of Canada that this charter should not be granted and that no charter should be granted to any company which proposes to build its main line to the Pacific coast through the United States.


George Matheson Murray: Mr. Speaker, important as this proposed bill is, there is a matter of parallel importance to my riding of Cariboo, the construction of the Pacific Great Eastern railway north into the Peace river country to bring out, not only oil, but coal, wood, lumber and all the other things to be found in abundance in that valley. I am surprised that so little support comes from these urgent gentlemen who are so willing to deny my participation in the discussion of these pipe lines.
I say that we must build the Pacific Great Eastern railway and we must have the support of hon. gentlemen who come from the deep south of British Columbia, who are interested in gardening, small dairying and

so on. The future of British Columbia lies in the Peace river country. If I did not advocate the building of a pipe line from the Peace river country to Vancouver by way of the Cariboo district I would be most unwise indeed.
As a result of efforts put forth in this chamber during the last session we now have a pipe line from Alberta into British Columbia, and as a result houses in the metropolitan area of Dawson Creek are being lighted with gas, and industries have the advantage of this natural fuel from Alberta. It is to the credit of Premier Manning that he gave permission to bring gas across the interprovincial boundary into northern British Columbia.
It happens that the Westcoast Transmission Company is the company which is running that pipe line into British Columbia from Alberta. Their program is to extend it to Prince George and Quesnel and then down to the larger market at Vancouver. It has been stated that there will be only one pipe line, but those who say that are not prepared to look into the future and see the great possibilities of the tremendous oil reservoir to be found, not only in British Columbia and Alberta but in the far north. It may well be that there will be several lines for the transmission of oil as well as other lines for the transmission of gas.
One pipe line was operating in the far north of British Columbia to convey oil from Norman Wells to the Pacific coast. There is a great reservoir of oil at Norman Wells in the Northwest Territories which is waiting to be tapped and carried out to the Pacific coast. Recent explorations have shown that the oil structure extends from the Turner valley north for 1,000 miles, giving the greatest oil reservoir in the world. Yet members say that only one small pipe line will ever be constructed to the Pacific coast. It is ridiculous.
As I say, the building of highways and railways is vital to the district which I represent. If hon. gentlemen will give as much enthusiastic support to the construction of a railway to the Pacific coast I would challenge them to get up in the house-


Howard Charles Green: On a question of privilege, the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank), the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) and myself were advocating a Peace river railway long before the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) ever got here.


George Matheson Murray: Before the royal
commission on transportation in 1950 I 80709-129
Border Pipeline Corporation asked for the building of this railway. There is a lot of information about the oil business that is not given to this house. I am no expert on oil, but I know that for thirty-five years we imported oil from the United States to Burrard inlet at Vancouver, and nobody seemed to be very bitter about that. If we had not got oil from the United States we would not have been able to run our automobiles or diesel engines in British Columbia. For thirty-five years our oil came either from California or from Peru. It was conveyed by tanker to ports on the west coast, and we were very glad to have it. British Columbia is one of the greatest markets for oil that there is.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Why send ours out then?


George Matheson Murray: Therefore I say we should not speak of the Americans with bitterness, and I think it is time that we gave fair consideration to all these factors. I can give you a little personal information about something that happened to my advantage in connection with the oil business. When I went to British Columbia from Ontario I naturally saw the possibilities of that new country. I homesteaded crown land some twenty miles outside the city of Vancouver. There were stumps of course and rocks, and it was not very attractive. It was like some of the country we see in Glengarry or up in Pontiac county. The day came when the Imperial Oil Company of Canada, represented by Mr. Victor Ross, came to me and bought 60 acres of that land to form part of the site for the present loco refinery on Burrard inlet.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Hear, hear.


George Matheson Murray: The oil business is a magic business. It is a great thing that we have these supplies in Alberta. It would be well to convey them to the coast of British Columbia, and certainly through Cariboo, but let us view the requests of these various persons with consideration, at least with courtesy, and not impute certain motives simply because companies come before us seeking incorporation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the bill, and I will give my reasons as I proceed. Before doing so, I want to draw the attention of the house to a rather interesting fact in connection with these bills that propose the piping of gas or oil from Canada through the United States, and in some cases back into Canada. It seems impossible for the companies concerned to get a sponsor from British Columbia. This bill is sponsored by an Ontario member. What is the reason for that? It is simply that all hon. members from

Border Pipeline Corporation British Columbia know that it is politically dangerous to sponsor a bill, whether it is for a gas or oil pipe line, that means the piping of gas or oil into the United States and thence to the coastal area without proceeding by an all-Canadian route.
I strongly oppose the bill now before us on two grounds. The first is the fact that the bill proposes to build a pipe line with private capital. We believe that pipe lines, railways and national efforts of this sort should certainly be under public ownership. That sentiment runs across party lines in this house. It is not only the C.C.F. who advocate the public ownership of pipe lines. Liberal members have expressed their support of public ownership.


An hon. Member:: Who?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Members of the Conservative party have expressed their support of public ownership. Of course the policy of the C.C.F. is to advocate public ownership of utilities such as these. In this house a year or so ago the leader of the coalition party from British Columbia rose and expressed his support for the public ownership of pipe lines.


John Lambert Gibson: Don't tag that name on me.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I refer to the brilliant member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson), with whom I do not always agree. Members who were present during the session when the debate on the general pipe lines bill and two or three succeeding pipe lines bills took place will remember that we had a demonstration in the house of how widespread the feeling and support is for the principle of public ownership. In that debate we witnessed the former member for Vancouver Centre, Mr. Rodney Young, and the leader of the coalition party in this house, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, jointly holding aloft the banner of public ownership of pipe lines.


John Lambert Gibson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I want to dissociate myself not only from the former member for Vancouver Centre but also from the coalition party in British Columbia.


James Sinclair: What about Tim Buck and Harvey Murphy? They are for public ownership too.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Regardless of the fact that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni dissociates himself on that question, they had an identity of point of view. In addition, he takes objection to the fact that I referred to him as the leader of the coalition party in this house. I was not suggesting that he represented the coalition in British Columbia. He represents the independent coalition party in the federal house.


On motion of Mr. Herridge the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being nine o'clock the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Railway and steamship services-
490. Repairs and expenses in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department, $52,000.


Mr. Knowles:: Supply-Transport
that he can recommend to the Canadian National Railways that they meet this request. Some hon. members may have felt when I first raised the matter that it was a labour matter rather than a transport matter. As I have already indicated, if one were trying to get the law changed in a general way, it would be a matter to take up under labour. In this instance it seems to me the thing to do is to try to get the Canadian National Railways to meet the request of this particular group of people. I indicated in my letter to the minister that if he wanted to discuss the matter with me after he had studied it, or with any of the rest of us who are interested, we would be glad to go to see him. He might like to have the Minister of Labour there as well. But my hope is that the result of this study, as I have already indicated, will be that he will see the justice of the claim that these men are making and that he will be prepared to recommend approval of their request to the management of the Canadian National Railways.


Lionel Chevrier: I remember quite well the letter which the hon. gentleman sent me. If my memory does not fail me at the moment, it struck me at the time that there were two or three questions involved. First there was a legal question. And then there was a question of labour relations, and finally there was the interest of the Canadian National Railways. I read his letter carefully and thought the best thing I could do was first of all to ask the Canadian National Railways to let me have their comments on the suggestion put forward by my hon. friend. That I have done, and I have simply acknowledged his letter without comment until I am able to get the reply of the officers of the railways. That has not been forthcoming as yet. I presume they are preoccupied at the moment with the committee on railways and shipping, for which they are getting ready. But just as soon as I am able to get their reply and also to give some consideration to the two aspects that I have mentioned, I shall write to my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate the position taken by the minister and I shall look forward to hearing from him when he gets that reply from the Canadian National Railways. I am wondering, however, just what the minister meant when he referred to the legal aspect of the matter.


Lionel Chevrier: I would have to have the letter before me. As I said a moment ago,
I was speaking from memory. What struck me when I read the letter-and it was a fairly long one, if I remember aright-was that there were two aspects of the question. 
One was a legal question as to the application of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and the other was as to labour relations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just suggest one other thought. I do this because I presume that, when this matter gets studied by the minister and by the department, today's Hansard will probably be looked at. Therefore if one has a point to make, now is the time to make it. My suggestion is this. I suggest that when the minister or his officials are studying this matter, they look up the debate which took place in this house when the labour code was before us. As a matter of fact, if my memory serves me aright, that debate took place on June 17, 1948. I do not presume to remember every date on which anything takes place, but I have reason for remembering that date very well and the Minister of Transport will remember it too. An extremely important amendment to the labour code went through on that date, one I had fought for for many years. In the debate of that day the minister will find that the then minister of labour discussed the position of these people who, by the terms of the labour code, are excluded from automatic recognition and the automatic right to collective bargaining. The point was that although these people, including the people involved in management functions, are excluded from that automatic right, still there is no law against that right being accorded to them by any employer who wishes to do so. It is that view of the former minister of labour which I wish the Minister of Transport would look at when he is assessing the legal aspects.


Lionel Chevrier: That was the question that was in my mind: whether or not an amendment to the act would be necessary in order to do what my hon. friend requested.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly the point. I am glad the minister raised it; because when, on June 17, 1948, an attempt was made to amend the act with respect to architects, I believe, that amendment was defeated. The minister of labour said then that even though that amendment was defeated, even though architects were excluded from the automatic right to collective bargaining, there was nothing to prevent them from having it wherever their employers were willing to accord it to them. That is what I am hoping the Canadian National Railways will be prepared to do with regard to these railway supervisors.


John Lambert Gibson: This afternoon when I mentioned this question of transportation of members of parliament, the minister did not give me any assurance that he was even

going to look into the matter. I am just wondering if he realizes the principle that is involved. It is customary for people to say that they do not care about the money, that it is the principle of the thing. I am not going to use quite that trite observation at this time; but to tell the truth, I cannot quite imagine the former member for Comox-Alberni, with his rather legalistic turn of mind, not making a protest when he got clipped year after year on this particular point. Probably he did. Even so, probably the same thing happened to him as happened to me. The hon. member for Danforth spoke in stentorian tones to the effect that probably more of us should pay our own way. But I can just imagine the squeals that he would make if, every week end when he went home-sometimes	perhaps on Thursday
night, probably more often late on Friday night-


John George Diefenbaker: No, not the hon. member for Danforth.


John Lambert Gibson: -if he had to pay some sum of money apart from what every other member of parliament pays. In those circumstances I am certain he would have supported the argument I made this afternoon. I am curious. This is an item for repair, operation and maintenance of official railway cars. Suppose the minister paid us a visit in British Columbia, and that he arrived at Vancouver. Suppose that someone suggested that the salmon was biting over in Campbell river and that he might like to take his car over there. Would he, as a matter of right, get transportation of his car to the island if he so requested? I am quite sure that he probably would not ask for it. But would he not have a right to do that?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer is no.


John Lambert Gibson: I am sorry to persist but is
the minister correct in that observation that the answer is no? Have you ever looked into it? Have you ever made a study of it?


Lionel Chevrier: I have not made a study
of it, but apparently the hon. gentleman is not conversant with the act. As I tried to explain to him this afternoon, the act does not provide free transportation for members of parliament by steamship companies. The act simply provides for transportation on railways, and it provides also for the making of regulations governing the issuance of transportation by the board of transport commissioners. The board of transport commissioners have no jurisdiction over the steamship companies. For that reason I gave the hon. gentleman the answer that I did this afternoon. When he now asks me if I am sure of my answer when I say no to him, may I say that the reason for saying no so quickly
Supply-Transport
arises out of the answer which I gave this afternoon. It is evident that I could not move a private car to the island without paying the cost of transportation on the steamship, unless the railway wanted to come forward and say, "Certainly take your car over; we will look after it."


John Lambert Gibson: There are terminal rates from the island, of course.


Lionel Chevrier: Unless the steamship company wants to treat the member in the same way, I do not see how there is any authority; in fact, there is no authority under the act to provide for it.


John Lambert Gibson: Of course my point was that probably the act should be amended. Could it be amended?


Lionel Chevrier: I suppose it could.


John Lambert Gibson: Would you not think that, in equity to all members of parliament, it should be amended?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think it should; no.


James Sinclair: I should like to join my colleague on this matter mainly because some three or four years ago the two of us placed another issue on transportation before this house. As you will recall, it was the question of whether or not hon. members coming from their ridings to this house could travel by air under the statute in question. We had done some work on the matter and saw that in the House of Commons Act there was this provision for direct transportation. Those who live close to Ottawa felt that the train was good enough; but those coming from far out-of-the-way places felt that the intent of the people who framed the act was that we should have direct passage. I am extremely glad that in the end the Speaker, who was adjudicating on the matter, upheld our contention. I am perhaps in a little bit better position to raise the point which he originally made because in the Railway Act the clause to which he referred makes provision that members of parliament may travel as of right on the railways of Canada. I looked back in Hansard and found out that this was one of the few concessions that the railways gave in return for getting the many concessions that this country gave in the way of land rights, mineral rights and so on, to enable the construction of the railways to go ahead.
I think the intent was pretty clear, namely, that this was a concession to enable a member of parliament to come from his home to Ottawa as often as he wanted on the national railway systems, not the nationally owned system. And today that intent is certainly carried out, because those members

Supply-Transport
from Newfoundland can come from Newfoundland on the Canadian National railway and the Canadian National steamship services and arrive in Ottawa on their House of Commons passes. Those who come from New Brunswick find that they can travel through the United States, but they have to pay their fare when they travel through the United States on the Canadian railways, which is then a United States company, which is as separate from the Canadian railway company as is the Canadian Pacific Railway coast steamships. All you have to do is to send the receipts down to the Canadian Pacific Railway agent here and you get a refund. But there are three members of parliament here, the hon. member for Victoria, the Minister of Fisheries; the hon. member for Nanaimo, and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who cannot get to parliament unless they pay the Canadian Pacific steamships their fare from Victoria to Vancouver or from Nanaimo to Vancouver. Why the Canadian Pacific Railway should refund the maritime members their fare and not make this concession to the three Vancouver island members I do not know.
This afternoon I raised the matter of subsidy which the Canadian Pacific steamships are not backward about asking for, a subsidy which is given them for their operation on the west coast. I can think of a little steamship line in my riding which does not get subsidies from the Department of Transport but it does extend the courtesy of a pass to the local members of parliament on their steamship lines because they feel that that was the sense of the original provision in the Railway Act.
I know that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni does not need the actual fare between Nanaimo and Vancouver. His predecessor who was also well endowed with this world's goods probably did not either; but it is more than that. It is the principle of the thing. There are three members of parliament who cannot come to parliament on their House of Commons passes, and I think quite frankly that the minister should pay a little attention to it, or perhaps hon. members should pay a little attention to it.


John Lambert Gibson: Nova Scotia members are in the same position.


James Sinclair: Yes, therefore it rises above sectionalism. I think members of all parties should pay a little more attention to the subsidies we give to these Canadian steamships if the Canadian Pacific feels that it is necessary to adhere so closely to the letter of the law so far as the British Columbia members are concerned and yet be so

generous with their cash refunds so far as the New Brunswick members are concerned.


Mr. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth):: In case there may be a misapprehension so far as the members from Nova Scotia are concerned, those who use the Canadian Pacific steamship Princess Helene pay their fare on that ship and do not get a refund. The refund they get is when they go through the state of Maine by train.


James Sinclair: I was just mentioning New Brunswick.


Thomas Andrew Murray Kirk: They do not travel by steamship.


John Lambert Gibson: I have just been informed that the Canadian Pacific inland steamships on Arrow lakes honour the passes. The hon. member for Kootenay West tells me that they give him the courtesy there and honour his pass. They do not give him a special pass. I have been told by certain Canadian Pacific Railway officials if I wish to make a submission in conjunction with the Minister of Fisheries-the Minister of Fisheries certainly must have a pass, I do not know. They suggested-


Mr. Winters:: I would not think so.


John Lambert Gibson: Perhaps he does not have one. He should have one, certainly.


Robert Henry Winters: The Minister of Resources and Development does not have a pass on the Princess Helene.


John Lambert Gibson: He should have one on the Princess Helene. As I was saying, the hon. member for Kootenay West told me that his pass is honoured on the inland steamships of the Canadian Pacific Railway. When it comes to the point of going up the west coast of Vancouver island, $100,000 of a subsidy is paid. I am quite sure that if the hon. member for Nanaimo and I went to the Canadian Pacific steamships and said: Will you please give us a pass? We think probably you should. We did not oppose your subsidy in the house. Then they probably would. As a principle, I do not think that a member of parliament ought to barter his support or otherwise with any steamship or railway company of Canada. Once again, as a matter of principle, I think the minister owes it to us. The fact that we come from these far distances and live on islands should not be a disability to us, so far as members of parliament are concerned.


Lionel Chevrier: Owes what to you? I do not quite understand the hon. member.


John Lambert Gibson: The minister can get around his riding without paying any railway fare.

He can go by rail or by road. I have to travel literally hundreds of miles in my riding, and in some sections of it there are only steamship services. That is the only connection that is provided there. In order to get around and see my constituents I must pay. I have never minded that in the past. I think the principle is wrong. If a minister can go to his people by rail for nothing, then I should be able to travel on steamships, particularly on the ones that get very heavy subsidies from this house, for nothing. I should be able to go and visit my people in the same way.


Major James William Coldwell: I think probably some of us who have not this to contend with as members of parliament should rise and say something in support of the principle that is being asked for by the members of parliament who are involved. In fact, I think it might have been better if some of the rest of us who are not involved had known about this and had raised the issue, because I am quite sure that while an interpretation might have been placed upon something that was said by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, it would not make any difference to his attitude on subsidies, or public affairs generally.
What I was going to say was this: If those of us who have not to cross water are able to travel to the House of Commons without let or hindrance in this way, no matter how small the amount-probably it does not amount to a great deal to some members relatively, but the principle is there-


John Lambert Gibson: Certainly.


Major James William Coldwell: -I think some consideration might be given to the matter by the minister. I know that we cannot do anything here at the moment, but I think it is only proper that a few of us who are not personally involved in this matter should say that we think that the principle that the hon. gentleman is arguing for is a sound one and should be conceded.


Lionel Chevrier: What I was going to say when I rose a moment ago is this. The difficulty arises because of the fact that there is no body that has jurisdiction over these steamship operations, such as the one having jurisdiction over the railways. The board of transport commissioners provides the regulations governing the issuance of transportation. In this case I suppose it would be possible to meet the position with an amendment, but I certainly would not be prepared to bring down an amendment without more discussion on the matter. I think a question of that kind would have to be discussed with the
Supply-Transport
steamship companies involved. It is my feeling that if it were there would not be very much difficulty about it. Perhaps I can ask the maritime commission to give it some consideration.
While the maritime commission does not have jurisdiction over the operations of these steamship companies, yet it provides the subsidies that have already been mentioned, and I will ask the maritime commission to give it consideration to see if it is not possible, without an amendment of the Railway Act or of some act of parliament, to grant in these specific cases courtesy transportation.


George Alexander Drew: I should think that what the minister has said would certainly agree with the views of the members. I am not going to add to what he has already said about his intention to take this up, but I would not wish Hansard at this point to carry the impression that has been left by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni in presenting his argument. It was quite unnecessary, and Hansard should not be left with the imputation which was directed to the hon. member for Danforth. In the first place the hon. member for Danforth is in the buildings. He was here today. The remarks to which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has referred were made this Friday afternoon. I think the suggestion that he leaves regularly on Thursday night was gratuitous and unnecessary. But, what is more, I would point out also that the hon. member has not correctly interpreted what was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Danforth. The hon. member for Danforth said that he would be in favour of cancelling all passes, and having the transportation provided by the issue of vouchers. I rise only to correct an impression which should not stand in the way it was placed on Hansard.


John Lambert Gibson: If I gave the impression that I was suggesting the hon. member for Danforth has not always been a distinguished member of the House of Commons then, if possible, I would wish my remarks to be deleted from Hansard. I have always had a high regard for the hon. member. However, it seemed to me today unfortunate that, in a case of this kind which probably did not affect him personally, he should have taken the particular view he. did take. But, so far as making any derogatory remarks about the hon. member, I shall be very glad indeed to withdraw them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister is going to take this matter up, there is one word I should like to say. I support the principle that has been raised, but it has been suggested in the discussion that one solution

Supply-Transport
to the problem might be for the Canadian Pacific Railway to make refunds to those who have to cross from Vancouver island to the mainland in the same way that it makes refunds to those who have to cross the state of Maine.
It seems to me what is needed is not a situation where certain hon. members get cash refunds from the Canadian Pacific Railway, but rather a law of this parliament providing that any necessary transportation is a matter of right. I am not suggesting that the law needs to be amended so that any hon. member of parliament can travel on any steamship at any time; but it does seem to me that the law could quite easily be	amended to provide
steamship transportation as of right where-ever that transportation is necessary to make a continuous trip from one part of Canada to another.
This is a matter which has interested me somewhat because of a story well known to many of us in Winnipeg. The first labour member ever to come to the parliament of Canada was Mr. Arthur Puttee, who was elected as the member for Winnipeg in 1900, fifty-one years ago. Mr. Puttee is today well on in years, but he is in good health and still lives in the city of Winnipeg.
At that time members of parliament for the most part made their trips to Ottawa by virtue of passes given to them by the various railways. The gifts of the railways in those days, so we are told, were quite generous in many cases, and hon. members felt they were under obligation to them. When Mr. Arthur Puttee was elected to come to Ottawa, though he was a workingman and it was not easy for him to find the money, he paid his own way, and sat up all the way. He was determined not to be under any obligation to the railway companies. It was not long before other hon. members felt the same way, and the law was amended so as to give transportation as of right, so that no hon. member was under any obligation to a railway company.
I think the situation that now obtains whereby the Canadian Pacific Railway makes refunds to those who cross the state of Maine should be changed, and that travel should be as of right. I would say the same should be the case for those who have to take a steamship at any place so as to make a continuous trip from one part of Canada to another.


Lionel Chevrier: That transportation could not by any stretch of the imagination be as of right, because it is in another country. This parliament has no authority to pass laws affecting other countries.

In so far as the first point raised by the hon. member, although I may be mistaken, I think perhaps the reason for the gratuitous transportation on railways is that parliament has always had jurisdiction over the railways, and provided the moneys voted originally for them. Not so, however, with the steamships, with the exception of steamships receiving subsidies. Many of the steamships which receive subsidies however would be of no use to hon. members. I believe that applies to the mail steamship operating between Vancouver and Victoria, which my hon. friend has in mind, and probably that is the one which would be used by the hon. member for Nanaimo. That perhaps is the reason why parliament, when it enacted legislation in the first instance, dealt with the railways alone, and not with steamships.


Major James William Coldwell: Do they not operate under charters granted by parliament?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. Then, if one pursues it a step further, why not grant transportation on bus lines? After all, these are private corporations over which we certainly have no jurisdiction.


Major James William Coldwell: But we do not grant bus lines charters.


Lionel Chevrier: No, we do not; but sometimes bus lines are the property of railways. I was saying that bus lines often are operated by railways through subsidiary companies. I am just trying to be helpful in finding a reason why there has been a distinction as between railways and steamships.


James Sinclair: And as between members of parliament.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, unfortunately, that is the case. I do not think it will apply to many members of parliament.


John Lambert Gibson: About twenty of them.


Lionel Chevrier: As I have said, I am asking the maritime commission to give it their consideration.


John Lambert Gibson: Just so that the record may be complete, I think the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River is perhaps under a greater disability than any other member in the house, in having to go from Skagway to Vancouver. I think that is particularly unfair and places an undue burden upon him.


Mr. Fulton:: When the minister is looking into this matter, perhaps he might look into the related matter of the status of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. Passes with which members are furnished say that they are entitled to free transportation, with baggage, upon all railway trains in Canada. I

am informed however that does not entitle a member to free transportation upon the Pacific Great Eastern.
Let me make it clear at once that they have never placed the slightest difficulty in my way when travelling on that line on a passenger train., or using their freight facilities, in conformity with the regulations existing in that regard. However I understand that there is some peculiar local position affecting the Pacific Great Eastern to the end that that railway, not having been completed, it is not a railway within the definition of the point we are discussing.
Perhaps when the minister is making a general investigation of the matter he would look into this point, because there are certain portions of my riding I can reach only by using the Pacific Great Eastern.


Lionel Chevrier: I will do that.


Mr. Hansell:: Perhaps some word might be added from this corner of the house. I do not think I have been particularly backward at any time in past years in rising to support the rights of members of parliament. Predictions have been made at times that when I did so I would get it in the neck. I never have found that to be so.
It is my personal view that the same privileges granted to members of parliament on railways should be granted to them on steamships plying in Canadian waters between coastal ports. My reason for saying that is that it will be discovered in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms-and I am not raising a point of order-that a member of parliament represents not only his own constituency, but rather that he represents all the people in Canada.
I think that principle is behind the fact that there is written into the Railway Act the matter of transportation over any Canadian railway for members of parliament. How is one to get first-hand knowledge of the country if he cannot go everywhere? How can one get first-hand knowledge of those parts of the country served by steamships? I believe that all members of parliament should be given passes on all steamship lines plying Canadian waters, both inland, and coastal.
The railway trains and the steamships are being run anyway, whether a member is travelling on them or not. To take a member on board a railway or a steamship does not mean even an infinitesimal cost because the railroad or steamship do not supply berths and meals and therefore it is impossible for them to lose. I make these remarks because I believe we have a right as members of 80709-130
Supply-Transport
parliament representing the people of Canada to be able to travel anywhere we desire.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I understood the minister
was going to have this matter investigated by the commissioners, but I would say that it is not necessary to have any investigation with regard to the Borden-Tormentine car ferry, or any other car ferry, because our passes are good.


John Lambert Gibson: If it is subsidized and maintained at a loss by the Canadian government, everybody should travel free. If it is making money, then we cannot travel.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hudson Bay Railway-
491. To provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance, and revenue accruing from operation during the year ending March 31. 1952. not exceeding $250,000.
Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, last night I
spoke for some thirty minutes on this particular question, but there is something else I should like to say. It would be better if I could have had both speeches together in the same Hansard. I should like to point out one disadvantage faced by the Hudson Bay railway as compared with other railroads. I refer to the diversion charge made by the elevator companies. I remember I was asked once to give a definition of this diversion charge and I said it was a charge for services not rendered. I think that is an apt definition.
This diversion charge of one and a half cents per bushel on wheat is made by the elevator companies when they are asked by the shipper to send his grain to a port at which that particular elevator company has no terminal. The minister can correct me if that is the wrong definition. Can he show any justification for such a charge?
This amounts to a grievance with the people who ship through Churchill. Would it make any difference in regard to this diversion charge if Churchill was given the same status-I presume it would have to be done by legislation-as other ports like Vancouver or Montreal? People do not mind paying money, but they do not like to pay it when they receive nothing in return.
As the hon. minister knows, for the past five years or so I have interested myself in the Churchill route. I was able to compliment the minister last night as well as the other organizations concerned upon the success that has been achieved in the promotion of this port. We have been able to influence public opinion, perhaps even in this house, in favour of this route. Things are coming

Supply-Transport
along nicely and it would be a tremendous help if we could get rid of this diversion charge.


Lionel Chevrier: This is the first time I have heard of this grievance and for this reason I cannot comment on it. Perhaps the hon. member will permit me to look into it.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I shall be pleased if the minister will do that. I am astonished that no one has brought this to his attention.


John George Diefenbaker: 
Lionel Chevrier: Does my hon. friend know if that is a national harbours board' charge?


John George Diefenbaker: I cannot say.


Lionel Chevrier: I have never heard of it.


John George Diefenbaker: I was under the impression that the charge was made directly by the elevator company which was requested to divert wheat through the Hudson bay route.


Lionel Chevrier: It is probably a wheat board matter and that is why it has not been brought to my attention. I am informed that it is, and I shall be glad to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


John George Diefenbaker: I certainly support my hon. friend. As I say, this matter has been raised on a number of occasions by the association that was set up to encourage traffic over the Hudson bay route. I should like to ask the minister if it is the intention to extend the facilities at Churchill? As the hon. member for Saskatoon city has said, last year the traffic over the Churchill route was something greater than it was during the 1930-34 period when the route was being used so extensively, and1 today there are the military considerations as well. That is one location so strategically important to the defence not only of the western provinces but of the northern region of our country that I should like the minister to say whether or not consideration has been given by his department to the extension or expansion of the facilities at present available. I was reading an article recently on the question of co-ordinated defence in North America, and the Hudson bay area received very high

marks as an area where strategic considerations were of paramount importance. I should like to ask whether or not, between the minister's department and the Department of National Defence, plans are being worked out whereby the facilities there available might be expanded or will be expanded within the next year or so.


Lionel Chevrier: I presume the hon. member refers to port facilities?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: That is a matter which we might discuss under the item for Churchill and the national harbours board.


John George Diefenbaker: One never knows under what item to discuss these matters.


Lionel Chevrier: One is a railway matter and the other is a port matter.


John George Diefenbaker: But the minister covers both.


Lionel Chevrier: The matter raised by my friend is clearly discussible under the other item. However, I can tell him this now-and I do not think it would vary when we come to the item later on-that if there is a greater movement of grain or of other traffic through the port of Churchill the national harbours board will make facilities available to meet that situation. The national harbours board informs me-and I have seen these facilities myself-that at the moment there are ample facilities to look after both incoming and outgoing traffic, certainly to look after incoming traffic because that is infinitesimal compared with the other. In so far as outgoing traffic is concerned, I think those who were at Churchill recently will have been impressed by the modem sheds and elevator, and there was even some reference by the hon. member for Souris to the drying facilities available there. I can tell the hon. member that at the moment I know of no item in the estimates to enlarge the facilities from the point of view of traffic.
Then there was the other question raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon and the hon. member for Lake Centre. Representations have been made to the government, particularly to the Canadian wheat board, for the cancellation of unwarranted diversion charges being made by western grain elevators of one and a half to two cents per bushel on grain when it is shipped to the port of Churchill. I presume that is what my hon. friend had in mind. The Department of Trade and Commerce advise that this matter was referred to the House of Commons standing committee when the chairman of the Canadian wheat board stated that no change in these traditional charges could be made at this time, and that statement met with the

approval of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is clearly not a matter that concerns the Department of Transport. I am sure my hon. friends brought it up so that it would get the attention of either one or other minister, and through this discussion it will be brought to the attention of the minister.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: What the minister has said confirms that the charge is applied by the elevator companies. It is the elevator companies that assess the charge.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Mr. Wright:: 
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, last night I put on the record a very detailed and up to date statement on the present position of box cars in Canada. The fact is that the position is almost back to normal. My hon. friend is probably aware that the movement of grain to Churchill generally starts in June or July and does not start at this time. Furthermore, it is not directed by this department. The movement of wheat is directed by the wheat board.


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Before the item carries I should like to ask one question following this discussion of the box car situation. I dealt pretty thoroughly with the Churchill situation last night but again this morning I had some wires from points in my own constituency about the box car situation for the movement of grain. I wonder if the minister would state how these cars are allocated. I know when I came here in January the station agent where I live had received instructions from the chairman of the wheat board at that time placing an embargo against dry grain until further notice. He was only to allow the shipment of damp grain. That was last January. Is the wheat board entirely responsible for the allocation of these cars for the shipment of grain? Have they been responsible since last August for the shipment of grain?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, they have.


James Arthur Ross: The Canadian wheat board officials are entirely responsible?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. Will my hon. friend read the statement which I put on Hansard last night? He will find that the present position is with reference to the box car situation, and also a statement by the chief commissioner of the Canadian wheat board.


James Arthur Ross: Yes, I will do that. 1 am sorry I was absent and missed that last night. I have not checked Hansard too closely. As I stated last evening, I sat in the Manitoba legislature at Easter and heard their minister of agriculture give many figures as to the amount of damp grain still to be moved in Manitoba if it was not to spoil there. I am quite sure there is a great deal more than that in Saskatchewan. It seems to me that somebody has rather bungled this matter so far as damp grain is concerned when we have this expensive and fine layout at Churchill.
I did not follow the minister when he said that grain does not start to move until the middle of the summer. I think this has been

Supply-Transport
a very exceptional season in the west, one of the worst I have ever experienced. I believe that with the government-owned facilities at Churchill, and the wheat board operating directly under government direction now, somebody has fumbled this thing rather badly. We covered the question fairly well last night. I was not too clear on this box car business. I shall read the minister's statement and check that situation. This morning I received a lot of correspondence from points in my own riding because the people are still alarmed about this damp grain and the shortage of box cars.


Percy Ellis Wright: I cannot accept the minister's statement that the wheat board has all the responsibility with respect to box cars.


Lionel Chevrier: I made no such statement as that. Please do not misquote me to that extent. The Canadian wheat board has no responsibility whatever with reference to box cars. This board has the direction for the movement of wheat, not of box cars.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is the point I was trying to make. Whoever is responsible, and I believe the minister's department has the allocation of box cars to the various commodities, there should be some more box cars allocated to moving this wheat up to the port of Churchill. Certainly if the minister will supply the box cars the wheat board will see that they are used to the best advantage, whether that is in the movement of this grain to Churchill or to some other point. The wheat board will decide according to the quota of box cars that you people make available to them. That is the point I am raising, and I believe that is the point the hon. member for Souris is raising.


Lionel Chevrier: Surely the hon. member is not suggesting that the Department of Transport has jurisdiction over the movement of box cars. It is not as simple as that. The owners of the box cars surely must have something to do with them and with their use. The shippers must have something to do with it. In wartime the government had a transport controller who had something to do with it, but that post has been abolished. As I said the other evening, until a transport controller is appointed in the United States it would be very difficult to control the movement of box cars from one country to the other.
What I did say was that a committee existed, composed of railway, steamship and wheat board representatives, as well as other shippers. This committee is now dealing with the present box car shortage. It is because of the work of this committee I was able to
TMr Ross (Souris).]
put on Hansard last night a statement showing the present box car position, which has considerably ameliorated in the last few weeks. Had it not been for the work of this committee, I do not think the chairman of the wheat board would have been able to report on April 9 that 1,000 box cars had been made available for the movement of wheat in western Canada.


Percy Ellis Wright: One thousand box cars daily?


Lionel Chevrier: That is daily, yes; and the following day his letter indicated that 800 cars had been made available. He expressed the hope that if the railways carried on with that movement, the position would remedy itself very quickly.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I should like to revert for a moment to this matter of the drying capacity. I should like to ask the minister if it is not a fact that the drying capacity has never been used at all? So far as I know there has never been a bushel of grain put through, except as a means of testing the equipment. I recall once asking the Minister of Trade and Commerce why the facilities we have at Saskatoon for the storage of 5-5 million bushels of wheat had at that time only 1,600 bushels. I asked him why those facilities were not used more than they were. He said it was worth the expense to this nation to keep that place as insurance against the day when we might need it. I would suggest that he might have said the same thing about this drying equipment, that it was insurance against the day when we might need it.
As I suggested to you, sir, last night, I think that day has come. We should cash in upon the premium of that particular insurance policy. I do not see why this grain could not have been taken up to Churchill. The capacity of the drying equipment is enormous. It is the finest grain drying equipment in this country. Last night it was revealed that this plant will dry the almost unbelievable quantity of 20,000 bushels in a twenty-four-hour period, or 15,000 to 20,000 bushels in accordance with the percentage of water in the grain. There seems to be some justification for the criticism. In a year when we know there is going to be a carryover of wheat and it has to be stored somewhere, I do not see why, unless it is as the member for Melfort suggests, the absence of box cars, the grain could not have been taken up to Churchill 'where it could have been dried at this rather colossal rate and stored in these bins, rather than leave it in this wet condition in the granaries and on the farms in northern Saskatchewan.
When the shipping season opens next year, we hope there will be 2 million bushels of

wheat in storage at Churchill ready to move out. I would suggest that now is the time to store it there. It may very well be done by having wheat shipped there in a damp condition, dried in these very fine facilities and stored in bins. It would then be safe until needed for shipment.


James Arthur Ross: I want to support what
the member for Saskatoon has said. As I stated last night I had the privilege of visiting Churchill last week end and inspecting the splendid storage facilities there. I asked the official in charge about this drying equipment. He said that to his knowledge-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I do not
want to interrupt the hon. member-


James Arthur Ross: I was coming to the
question I want to ask.


Lionel Chevrier: -but after all I think we must be fair. If I can help it, I am not going to allow a debate on wheat. I am not the minister responsible for wheat, and I do not profess to know anything about wheat. Furthermore, what we are discussing now is a matter concerning the national harbours board and that is not the item on which we are. We are on the Hudson Bay railway, but we have been talking about the port of Churchill for the last half hour. I try to be patient. I do not want to interrupt continually, but I think in fairness to the minister who has these estimates we should keep to the item. I do not mind getting away from the item now and then, but we have spent at least thirty or thirty-five minutes discussing the port of Churchill and matters which do not concern me but which concern the wheat board.


James Arthur Ross: The question I want to
ask concerns the Minister of Transport. I was going to lead to it by simply stating that the official at Churchill informed me there had never been two complete carloads of grain dried in that plant. There is certainly a splendid storage capacity there now for over 2 million bushels. I wanted to ask the minister when this committee for the allocation of box cars was set up. As I say, there are people who are still dissatisfied about the allocation of box cars. I received correspondence about that subject today, and I should like to be able to tell these people how long this committee has been functioning.


Lionel Chevrier: The committee has been
functioning for two weeks. I have been getting a number of telegrams, just as the hon. member has. I have replied to them along the lines I indicated last evening and again tonight; that is the best information I have available, and I have been giving it to these people.
Supply-Transport


Mr.  A. J. Baler@The Baillefords: I intend to say only a few
words about this box car shortage. I believe there was about as much grain lying out in my constituency this winter as in any constituency in Saskatchewan. I realize that the minister and his department have nothing to do with the box car shortage, but I sincerely hope that after all that has been said they are cognizant of the fact that we want these cars to move not only the grain that has been in the elevators, which has been damp and tough all winter, but also the crop that has yet to be threshed.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I wanted to ask the minister
about this deficit for 1951 of $400,000. Was that all in respect of the railroad? Then, the deficit seems to have been reduced to $250,000 for last year.


Lionel Chevrier: It was all in respect of the
railways.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I see that we have a 1951-52 deficit, and that amounted to $250,000, a decrease I am glad to say of $150,000. To what does the minister attribute that decrease? I presume to increased traffic.


Lionel Chevrier: Increased movement of grain.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: If we follow this thing to its logical conclusion, the conclusion is that if a sufficient quantity of grain were shipped over that route, that deficit of $250,000 would disappear and the railway would be out of the red. In other words, what the railway needs, in order to take it off the back of the taxpayers in this country, is more traffic. Is that the way the minister would interpret the situation, namely, that more traffic would remedy the situation and that the railway would come out of the red.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; as I said, it is due to the increased movement of grain and also to the increased defence traffic up to the port.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway and steamship services-
Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals-
493. To provide for the payment during the fiscal year 1951-52 to the Canadian National Railway company (hereinafter called the national company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made from time to time by the national company to the Minister of Finance and to be applied by the national company in payment of the deficit (certified by the auditors of the national company) in the operation of the Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals arising in the calendar year 1951, $1,280,000.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I am pleased with one thing in connection with this item. It has now found its way under a new heading. It used to appear as a deficit. It is now in with other company and comes under services. I must say that "service" is the correct name

Supply-Transport
for it instead of "deficit", as it has always appeared from time to time heretofore. I notice that the amount payable for this service is $1,280,000 or an increase over last year of $121,000. With all due respect to the auditors in connection with the auditing of the accounts, I think that the committee are entitled to something more than just the bare, bald figures. When you come to the detail, they forget themselves again and they call it a deficit once more. But we will let that matter pass. There is never given to the committee any indication of how this deficit, as they term it, or this service is costing so much. I think this committee should be entitled to get the following information. I think they should be told the gross amount of expenditure for the operation of the ferry. Another thing that we should know is how much was spent on the construction of the terminals or the repairs.


Lionel Chevrier: That is on the next item.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Furthermore, I should like to know how much was spent on repairs to the two steamers, the Prince Edward and the Abegweit, during the year in question. What about the revenue? I do not wish to ask for all the details of it, but I think it would be worth while to know what revenue comes in. For instance, there must be considerable earning power there as well as spending power. If you look at page 171 of the commission's report, you will find there the information that some 52,000 carloads of freight were moved over there, and most of that would be long haul freight. The ferry should be entitled to a fairly good earning power from those 52,000 carloads of freight. Furthermore, some 200,000 passengers crossed over on the ferry, and that would be another earning power. Then again, 50,000 automobiles and trucks have gone over there in the year. That is another earning power of the railway. All these added up should make a fairly good revenue. That is what I should like to get at. I want to know the amount of revenue it has actually produced.
I would hope to see included in that amount the credit that the Borden ferry gets on the long haul cars that are beneficial to the Canadian National Railways. I understand that the divisional point at which the long-haul cars of freight originate get an extra amount of the freight rather than a straight haul of their own. As I said, I am not asking for a detailed statement of what any part of the ship or anything else costs or what the restaurant earns and all that; but I should like to have a gross figure, in order to see where this deficit, as it is termed in the detail, or this service has to be provided for.


Lionel Chevrier: I should be glad to give the hon. gentleman all the information I have. The total operating expenses for the year 1950 were $1,611,004. The total revenues for the same year were $361,341. The net operating loss for the year was $1,249,663. The total amount of money spent on the terminal facilities at Borden and Tormentine was in the neighbourhood of $7 million. This amount was spent over a period of three years in about the proportion of half on Tormentine and half on Borden.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: None of that amount is
included in this $1,280,000, is it?


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, no.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: And no repairs to the boat?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. Repairs to the boat
are in this, but unfortunately there is no separate amount for them and I am not able to give them from the information I have. I think the hon. gentleman should have that information if he wants it, and I will be glad to give it to him. Perhaps we could get it in the committee when it sits next week.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The reason I asked that
question was that there were reports that there were repairs to our new boat amounting to over half a million dollars. Having regard to the source from which I gathered that information, I could not really believe it. I should like to find out.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure there is nothing
of that nature at all. I have some recollection that last year the repairs to the Abegweit were in the neighbourhood of $60,000 and I presume that this year they would be in much the same amount.
Item stands.
Railway and steamship services-
Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited-
495.	To provide for the payment from time to time to the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited (hereinafter called "the company") of the amount of the deficit occurring during the year ending December 31, 1951, in the operations of the company and the vessels under the control of the company, as certified by the auditors of the company, and upon applications made by the company to the Minister of Finance and approved by the Minister of Transport, not exceeding $845,000.


Percy Chapman Black: I would ask the minister what provision is to be made for new steamers to replace the ones that have been lost in recent years on the service to the West Indies. Some of these steamers were lost during the war. I refer to the Lady boats. There are only one or two of these boats in existence now. Will the minister make a statement?


Lionel Chevrier: Because of the lack of
traffic, no provision is being made to replace

the boats that were lost. However, two new diesel cargo vessels were put into operation some few years ago: the Canadian Constructor and the Canadian Cruiser, both of which operate in the West Indies. There are a number of passenger vessels. There are about ten vessels in operation. But there is no provision for new vessels; and until the position with reference to trade alters to indicate a greater movement of trade from the West Indies to Canada, I am afraid that the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships will not be in a position to build, to purchase or to assign new vessels to this route.


Percy Chapman Black: I understand then from the minister that the steamers now available are able to handle all the traffic that can be expected between Canada and the West Indies.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, I suggest with deference, that items 493 and 495 should not be carried by this committee at the present time, because they were referred on Wednesday, April 11, by motion introduced by the minister himself, to the sessional committee on railways and shipping. I have just looked up the terms of the resolution which is to be found at page 1991 of Hansard. It reads in part as follows:
And that the resolution passed by the house on March 12, 1951, referring certain estimates to the committee of supply, be rescinded in so far as the said resolution relates to votes Nos. 493, 495 and 501.
I would imagine the proper procedure would be that you might discuss it but not actually carry it until the sessional committee had completed its work.


Lionel Chevrier: I think the point of order raised by the hon. member is well taken. It is the practice to withdraw these items and refer them to the committee on railways and shipping, and that is what I indicated to the hon. member for Queens a moment ago. I said1 that the information was not available but I would get it for him when the committee was sitting. The point is well taken.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think we should actually carry them. We should discuss them but not carry them.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Items 493, 495 and 501 will stand.
Items stand.
496.	Strait of Canso-transportation improvements and facilities-capital, $1,000,000.


Percy Chapman Black: This is an interesting item. The sum of $2 million was voted in the previous year, and a million dollars is
Supply-Transport
now being voted for transportation improvements and facilities in Canso strait. Can the minister explain what has been done with the money which was voted in the previous year, and what does he propose to do with the million dollars now being asked1 for?


Lionel Chevrier: With reference to the $2 million to which my hon. friend refers, none of that was spent. That was put into the estimates last year in order to provide for the construction of the low-level bridge. There is an item of $1 million in the estimates this year to provide for the construction of that bridge should the board of engineers, which has been reconvened, recommend that the project be proceeded with along the lines of the plan submitted by the engineering expert, Dr. Pratley.


Percy Chapman Black: Can the minister give us any further information as to when we may expect a report from the engineers who have been reconvened?


Lionel Chevrier: I hope it will be before the session has completed its work.


George Alexander Drew: Does it then represent an accumulated $3 million for this work?


Lionel Chevrier: No. The $2 million not having been spent just lapsed, and this is a revote in part of the $2 million. It is $1 million. None of the $3 million has been spent so far.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
497.	Enlargement of dock and terminal facilities at North Sydney, N.S.-capital, $1,660,000.
Percy Chapman Black: May I have a statement from the minister with respect to what work is being carried on at North Sydney? Was it let by contract? Who are the contractors? What expenditures will be made before the works that have been authorized will be completed?


Lionel Chevrier: This is the terminal and dock facilities at North Sydney which are being built in. preparation for the new ferry which is also mentioned in another item. The estimated cost of the enlargement of the docks and terminal facilities at North Sydney will amount to $2,630,000. There is included in these estimates for the construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment for the present fiscal term, $1,660,000. It is impossible to complete the whole of the works during this fiscal year.


Percy Chapman Black: Has this work been let at tender?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it has.


Percy Chapman Black: At a fixed
amount?

Sup p ly-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Percy Chapman Black: Who are the contractors, and what was the amount of the contract?


Lionel Chevrier: The contractor is T. C. Gorman and the amount of the contract is $1,216,777. It went to the lowest tender.


Percy Chapman Black: Will that complete all the new facilities which are required at North Sydney?


Lionel Chevrier: It will not complete all of the new facilities, because the estimated cost of the project is $2,600,000. There are some sheds to be built, some land to be expropriated and some equipment that will be required. The estimate of the cost of the work is $2,600,000, and the contract has been awarded to these people for the amount mentioned.


George Alexander Drew: In this instance is the $1,500,000 voted last year still available for this purpose in addition to the amount now being voted?


Lionel Chevrier: No, it is not.


George Alexander Drew: So that the only amount that is made available now for this purpose is the $1,660,000?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


George Alexander Drew: Therefore, what is now being voted will not complete the work?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


George Alexander Drew: Is it possible to say when it is expected that this work will be fully completed?


Lionel Chevrier: I am informed it will not be completed until the summer of 1952.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
498.	Construction of new dock and terminal facilities at Port aux Basques, Nfld.-capital, $500,000.
George Alexander Drew: This is a provision for the construction or acquisition of buildings, works and land at Port aux Basques. Will the minister explain exactly what is contemplated there, and how far will it go toward completing the facilities required of what I understand is the other end of this transportation arrangement?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, the hon. member is right. This is to provide the facilities at the other extremity of the run between North Sydney and Port aux Basques. The estimated cost of the development there, that is the construction of new dock and terminal facilities, will be $3,500,000. There is provision in this estimate for $500,000, because it is not expected that it will be possible during this fiscal year to have the work in sufficient readiness to ask for tenders and call bids. (Mr. Black (Cumberland).]
This money will be used for the construction and acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment.


George Alexander Drew: When is it expected that the work contemplated at Port aux Basques will be fully completed?


Lionel Chevrier: I hardly think before 1953.


George Alexander Drew: I might explain the purpose of the question. It apparently is expected that the work at North Sydney will be completed by the summer of next year, and then, as I understand, the work that would be required to make the other end equally satisfactory for this new means of transportation will not be completed until the summer of 1953.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
499.	Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels, as detailed in the estimates-capital, $2,550,000.
George Alexander Drew: As I understand it this item is connected with the two previous items and provides for the acquisition of an auto-ferry vessel for the service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques. The estimated cost of the vessel is $4,500,000. Will the minister explain why in this case $2,500,000 is asked for and not the total figure of $4,500,000, which the vessel will cost?


Lionel Chevrier: Because in the construction of these vessels it takes generally a period of two, three and sometimes more years. It is not anticipated that we can spend the full amount of the $4,500,000 this fiscal year, because the vessel will not be completed. Detailed plans and specifications are just now being worked out and it is estimated that progress payments during this fiscal year will amount to $2,500,000.


George Alexander Drew: Has the contract yet been entered into for the construction of this vessel?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, and the contractor is Canadian Vickers of Montreal.


George Alexander Drew: When is it anticipated the ship will be completed?


Lionel Chevrier: In 1953.


George Alexander Drew: So that it is anticipated, then, that the completion of the work at Port aux Basques and the availability of the ship will coincide, and that full service with the new ship and with facilities at both ends will be available in 1953?


Lionel Chevrier: That is the present expectation and the present estimate. But very often, because of lack of steel or lack of other materials, our dates are out of line.

But from the information engineers and contractors give us we are hopeful that it will be possible to have the whole ferry service with necessary facilities in operation at that time.


George Alexander Drew: I recognize that, under conditions which now exist, many things could interfere with the completion of a contract. But do I understand that, subject to the pressure of events related to the emergency through which we are passing, it is anticipated that the ship and the completion of the facilities would make it possible to open this service at the beginning of the ordinary transport season in 1953?


Lionel Chevrier: I would not like to say that it would be at the beginning of the navigation season, because that means early in the year. But the information we have is that it will be some time in 1953.


Thomas Andrew Murray Kirk: I should like to ask about the $50,000 in vote 499 for the proposed ferry between Yarmouth and a port in the New England states.


Percy Chapman Black: We have not passed the previous estimate yet.


Thomas Andrew Murray Kirk: The minister will recall that in the estimates last year a million dollars was voted, following an announcement by the Minister of Transport in December of 1949 to the effect that such a ferry would be operated between Yarmouth and the New England states. Two governments were concerned, as well as the two countries. Several boards of trade were interested and there were of course the usual tourist committees, and a multiplicity of other committees concerned.
The people in western Nova Scotia, who had looked forward to a service between Yarmouth and a port in Maine, and were making their plans to establish new businesses and to carry their products of the farm and the sea to the United States by a short and direct route, and who planned to make use of autobus and refrigerator truck services, and who were interested in establishing a new tourist business in western Nova Scotia, were of course greatly disappointed when the announcement was made last fall in the month of November that because of the steel shortage the project would have to be shelved temporarily.
Because of present international conditions, the people of western Nova Scotia have accepted that. They regret it and they also realize that in this coming summer all they can look forward to is three months' service with the present Eastern Steamship Lines. In the winter they have a subsidized service running between Yarmouth and Boston.
Supply-Transport
Can the minister enlarge upon the statement he made some months ago, when he said that the project was temporarily shelved, owing to the steel shortage?


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I cannot add much to what I said at that time, other than to say that we hope to provide in these estimates the sum of $50,000 for the preparation of plans and specifications. I am pleased however to be able to say that from the information the maritime commission have given me it is my understanding that the Eastern Steamships will continue to operate the service between Yarmouth and Boston. Beyond that I am afraid I cannot go. I would not like to elaborate upon what was said in the statement to which my hon. friend refers. I, too, regret that it has not been found possible to make provision for this. However, a lack of steel, and some other reasons, made it imperative on the part of the government to suspend for the time being the construction of this ferry.


Mr. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouih):: When the minister states the maritime commission had informed him that Eastern Steamships will continue the service, he is referring to the coming summer?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


James Ralph Kirk: Nothing more definite than that?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Percy Chapman Black: I agree with the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth. The people of Nova Scotia have been greatly disappointed with the delay, after their hopes were raised to such a high point. This steamer was to be provided to serve the tourist trade of Nova Scotia, and the New England states, more particularly the southern part of Nova Scotia. However the people of Nova Scotia are getting accustomed to these disappointments-I am thinking of the Canso bridge and the trans-Canada highway in addition to this steamer.
I understood the minister to say that designs had been completed and a contract let for a steamer for the North Sydney-Newfoundland service. What is to be the motive power in that new steamer? I take it for granted that it will be operated by coal.


Lionel Chevrier: No, it is a diesel-operated ship.


Percy Chapman Black: Does the minister tell this committee that he is going to use oil in a ship which operates out of the very heart of the coal-producing centre of eastern Canada, in fact of all Canada? I would say

Supply-Transport
that that would be a direct slap in the face to the citizens in that part of Canada. I am very much surprised and disappointed to hear the minister say that this new boat is being designed to be driven by oil. I am pleased that these new facilities are being provided, a wharf at North Sydney and another at Port aux Basques, and the provision of a large new ferry steamer. I am sure all hon. members in the house are pleased that this is being done.
We want to have this service operated with the best boat that can be made available. But I would ask the minister why preference has been given to oil. There seems to be a tendency now in Nova Scotia, particularly in connection with the Canadian National Railways, to sidetrack coal and use oil-burning locomotives. Oil is being used even on through trains from Montreal to Halifax, and on the Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island railways. I understand that most of the shunting engines in the maritimes are now diesels, and that they have been authorized for the Gaspe service. I would ask the minister if it is too late to reconsider the motive power to be used in this new steamer.


Lionel Chevrier: This ship will be very much similar to the Abegweit. It will be required to carry freight and passengers and also to break ice at certain seasons of the year. It has been found that diesel electric motors operate more cheaply and more efficiently with oil than with coal.


Percy Chapman Black: Does the minister think that he can justify the use of a diesel boat, oil-driven, out of coal-mining centres such as North Sydney, Sydney Mines and Glace Bay, the greatest coal field in Canada? We have these great national resources and yet this boat which is to operate in this territory is to be driven by oil.


Lionel Chevrier: That is what was done with respect to the car ferry Abegweit, and the proposal was put forward by a minister from the maritime provinces.


Percy Chapman Black: That was done after protest by the people of Nova Scotia, especially those in Springhill, where for years they had enjoyed a market for from 25,000 to 40,000 tons of coal per year. There was no justification for the use of oil on the Abegweit, and I am sure there is no justification for the use of oil on this boat we are referring to.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
500.	Ogden Point piers, Victoria, B.C.-construction or acquisition of buildings, works and land- capital, $55,000.
[Mr. Black (Currberland) .1
Edmund Davie Fulton: What is the purpose of this vote?


Lionel Chevrier: It is to enable provision to be made for adequate storage areas for the collection of lumber cargoes made necessary by an increase in lumber movements at Victoria. The asphalt paved areas will be increased.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I notice in the details on page 479 that during the fiscal year 1949-50 there was an expenditure of $165,000, and then last year there was a vote of $43,000 with an actual expenditure of $26,704. Is this vote in connection with the same work?


Lionel Chevrier: It is an entirely different expenditure. The expenditures referred to, if my memory serves me aright, were made following the visit of a departmental committee after protests by the city council and which came to the conclusion that additional repairs were required.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and other benefits-
503. Railway employees provident fund-to supplement pension allowances under the provisions of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum payment during the period January 1, 1951, to March 31, 1952, the sum of $30 per month instead of $20 as fixed by the said act, $14,250.
John George Diefenbaker: I think this is the only item that would permit the bringing up of the general question of railway employees' pensions. There are a few words I should like to say in addition to' those I expressed the other day in regard to the pension system of the Canadian National Railways. When the matter was up on the last occasion, because of the circumstances under which it was brought up the minister did not have an opportunity of explaining the present situation. As far back as 1947 I brought up the question of something being done in order to improve the situation of employees of the Canadian National Railways who were on retirement. I brought this matter up again in 1948 and used these words, as reported on page 939 of Hansard of February 6, 1948, which I think are as applicable today as they were then:
-that the time has come for the government to give consideration to a permanent upward revision of the basic pension, with a view to a material increase therein, and in the meantime while consideration is being given to that a cost of living bonus ought to be provided for. The basic pension rate today is woefully inadequate. Equity demands its revision.
That was in 1948 and at that time the $25 per month basic pension had been in effect since 1935. The other day figures were given of the number of Canadian National employees in receipt of $25 pension upon retirement, that being the basic pension. The minister

discussed this question on February 11, 1948, as reported on page 1111 of Hansard, as follows:
In reply to the invitation given by the hon. member for Lake Centre to the government to revise upward the basic pension of the Canadian National Railways, all I can say is that, in view of the attitude taken by the government with respect to its own superannuated civil servants, I would not feel disposed to advise the government to interfere in the pension plan of the Canadian National Railways, or to ask the government to tell the officers of the Canadian National Railways that they should revise the basic pension upward.
So the situation has remained throughout the intervening years. The other day the matter came up again and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself spoke with regard to the necessity of something being done. In my opinion there is no excuse that can be satisfactorily given for the failure of the government to have acted in this connection. Three years have gone by and the cost of living continues to mount while the basic pension of the Canadian National Railways remains at $25 per month.
Today members of the house received a communication from James Downs, secretary of the Canadian National Railways veterans association, which sets forth the situation in clear and unmistakable language. This bears the date April 12, 1951, and says in part:
At a recent meeting of the above association I was instructed to bring to your attention the following conditions affecting the Canadian National Railways pensioned employees.
That the basic pension minimum, twenty-five dollars a month, is totally inadequate to meet the continual rising cost of living, especially amongst the large number of pensioners who, when employed, were receiving wages which only entitles them to the minimum pension of twenty-five dollars.
It goes on to point out that a large number of pensioners did not have the privilege of contributing to the revised pension plan which was put into operation in 1935, and continues:
The employees of the railways and all industries in Canada have had increases in wages and cost of living bonuses granted to them to meet the cost of living conditions during the past few years.
Then the next paragraph reads:
That many of the pensioners are merely existing under deplorable and extenuating circumstances, also cannot secure the old age pension between the ages of 65 to 70 years.
Then they point out that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Ontario Northland Railway have increased the pension rate for retired employees. I bring this matter again to the attention of the minister. There is not a day goes by without letters being received from ex-employees of the Canadian National Railways pointing out the injustice of the situation. While in
Supply-Transport
the chamber this evening I received a letter from one of these former employees setting out the situation. He points out that he worked for twenty-seven years and eight months straight service but is not of an age to be entitled to the pension. Not being sixty years of age he is not entitled to what is called a gratuitous pension because he had some small savings set aside and had built himself a house during the years he was earning.
I do not want to speak at any length but I feel that the present rate of basic pension cannot be justified in any way. It is inadequate, it is unfair, it is unreasonable. Several thousand ex-employees of Canadian National Railways across this country find themselves today, by reason of the rising cost of living and having only a basic pension of $25 a month, in a position that is unjustifiable and is no credit to one of the public services of this country. In order to give any other hon. member an opportunity to join in this discussion, I simply conclude by asking the minister what is going to be done about this matter. How much longer will action be delayed? Four years have gone by since I first brought the matter up:	There is no
indication yet that anything is being done to meet the situation.
These ex-employees are not organized. They have no means whereby they can bring their position before parliament except through the media of members of parliament who are prepared to present the argument. In addition to them, there are also of course those who are being retired from time to time on a basic pension which, in so far as the low income employees of the railway are concerned, places them in a position that borders on destitution inasmuch as over the years in their positions as section men, porters and so on these lesser salaried employees of the railway have been unable to contribute to the pension and thereby provide themselves with at least a semi-adequate pension.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is a good deal I should like to say with respect to this matter even if I have said it before, but I think I will take only a minute to endorse what has been said again by the hon. member for Lake Centre, and to express the hope that in the two or three minutes remaining before eleven o'clock the minister might give us a little more information than he has given thus far on other occasions on which this matter has been raised. It would seem only natural, in view of the number of times the question has been raised, and particularly in view of the number of times the minister has had to get the Canadian National Railways to provide information to answer my questions about

Supply-Transport
these pension amounts, that the railways must have given some attention to this matter. Can the minister tell us whether any consideration is being given by the company to increasing the basic pension of $25, to providing a cost of living bonus of some sort, or to making any other changes in the pension set-up of Canadian National Railways?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, Mr. Chairman, both the Canadian National Railways and the government have been giving this matter consideration over a period of time. Canadian National Railways have been discussing the matter with their employees, and what the position is at the moment I am unable to say. Through their president Canadian National Railways discussed it with me on several occasions during the course of the year, and on at least two occasions it has received the careful consideration of the government. I have to say that the government thus far has not been able to recommend or direct the Canadian National Railways to increase the basic pension upwards until such time as the matter of its own civil servants receives similar or adequate consideration. Then there is also the question of other groups that are in the same position as that of Canadian National pensioners.


John George Diefenbaker: Which are they?


Lionel Chevrier: There are other groups
affected by inflation. There are a number of them. There are the pilots, other pension groups, the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway employees, the provident fund group and, as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs says, the old age pensioners themselves. It appears to me that this question cannot be disposed of piecemeal, and that until such time as it is possible to find a solution for the whole problem the government does not feel disposed thus far to direct the Canadian National Railways to deal with a portion only of the problem.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In this connection do I take it that the minister is talking only about retired employees of Canadian National Railways already on pension, or does that apply to any revision of the pension plan for those who are still employed and paying into the various funds? I gathered from what the minister said that he is thinking of the group whose plight we have pressed most, namely, the retired railway pensioners on low pension. I take it from what he said

that their case stands on the same plane as that of the superannuated civil servants and others in similar situations.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, it is time for action for all of them.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: On Monday we will continue with the debate on the budget.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Canal services-
472.	Administration, $107,134.
473.	Operation and maintenance, $4,523,107.
474.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $3,500,000.
475.	To provide for expenses in connection with the St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations, $10,000.
Marine services-
476.	Marine services, administration, including agencies, $513,944.
Marine service steamers-
477.	Administration, $50,112.
478.	Operation, maintenance and repairs, $4,490,072.
479.	Construction or acquisition of vessels, as detailed in the estimates-capital, $2,254,800.
Aids to navigation-
480.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $4,215,904.
481.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $692,540.
Nautical services-
482.	Administration, $152,950.
483.	Operation and maintenance, including grants and contributions, as detailed in the estimates: rewards for saving life from vessels in distress; subsidies to salvage companies, and the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen as defined in section 296 of the Canada Shipping Act, $390,591.
484.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $21,500.
485.	Pilotage service, including authority for temporary recoverable advances not exceeding $13,000, $367,363.
486.	Steamship inspection and the carrying out of the provisions of the conventions for the safety of life at sea and load lines, $461,408.
487.	Marine signal service, $173,981.

River St. Lawrence ship channel service-
488.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $922,291.
489.	Contract dredging-capital, $2,013,409.
Railway and steamship services-
490.	Repairs and expenses in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department, $52,000.
Hudson Bay Railway-
491.	To provide for the difference between the expenditures for operation and maintenance, and revenue accruing from operation during the year ending March 31, 1952, not exceeding, $250,000.
492.	Construction or acquisition of buildings and works-capital, $40,000.
Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals- 494. Construction and improvement of terminal facilities-capital (revote), $75,000.
Supply-Transport
Railway and steamship services-
496.	Strait of Canso-transportation improvements and facilities-capital (revote), $1,000,000.
Canadian government railways-
497.	Enlargement of dock and terminal facilities at North Sydney, N.S.-capital, $1,660,000.
498.	Construction of new dock and terminal facilities at Port-aux-Basques, Nfld.-capital, $500,000.
499.	Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels, as detailed in the estimates-capital, $2,550,000.
500.	Ogden Point piers, Victoria, B.C.-construction or acquisition of buildings, works and land-capital, $55,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
502. Amount required to pay pensions at the rate of $300 per annum to former pilots:	Alphonse
Asselin, Arthur Baquet, Adelard Delisle, Raoul Lachance, Jules Lamarre, Wilhelm Langlois, George Larochelle, Auguste Santerre, $2,400.